The sex offender sentenced Gary Glitter was declared bankrupt after omitting more than £ 500,000 to a woman he mistreated at the age of 12, his lawyers said.
The pop star in disgrace, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was sentenced in 2015 for having abused women between 1975 and 1980, as well as two other young people, and was sentenced last year to pay damages from the victim of £ 508,800.
The sum included £ 381,000 of lost profits and £ 7,800 for therapy and future treatment.
Richard Score, head of the law of abuses to Slater and Gordon, who represents one of the victims, confirmed that Gadd, 80, had been bankrupt, adding that he had refused to cooperate and “continues to treat his victims with contempt”.
In a press release, he added: “We hope and hope that the Conditional Liberations Commission will take into account its behavior in future requests for parole, because it clearly demonstrates that it has never changed, shows no remorse and remains a serious risk for the public.”
Gadd was imprisoned for 16 years after his conviction in 2015 and released in February 2023 after serving half of his sentence.
He was returned to prison six weeks later after finding that he had violated his license conditions by allegedly looking at images downloaded from children.
The woman, who cannot be appointed for legal reasons, submitted a request for compensation against Gadd. The high court learned that it had not been able to work for decades due to the abuse and had suffered mental scars for life.
Judge Ms. Justice Tipples judged that Gadd had submitted the applicant “to sexual abuse of the most serious genre”.
She said that she was convinced that the woman had not been able to find “a significant job throughout her life”, and granted her damages for complex psychological therapy and a treatment and loss of income.
“Her education was ruined and she suffered a serious psychiatric injury for the rest of her life,” she added.
In his decision, the judge said that Gadd had not recognized that the compensation request had been filed against him – which means that he had lost the default case.
He had not responded to an offer to speak to the court on a prison video link when it comes to deciding on the exact amount he should pay, she added.
