MANY people – not least Eunice Spry's victims – will want to

know the answer to just one question today. How could she have

the nerve?

After all the physical pain she caused to her young victims,

after all they had to go through to ensure that justice was

done, how on earth can Spry have the nerve to be taking the

case back to court?

Remember, she is not appealing against the fact that she was

convicted but against the sentence imposed.

Spry claimed in the past that she was a strict person not a

cruel person – despite the injuries that suggested

otherwise.

But the new case isn't about whether she did or didn't carry

out the abuse. It's about whether she has been given an unduly

long sentence.

Let's look again at just some of the things this “devout”

Jehovah's Witness was responsible for.

The children were beaten. They had sandpaper rubbed across

their faces. They were forced to eat rat droppings.

If Spry still believes, in her own warped world, that she

was not responsible, then she or her lawyers are clearly not

convinced enough to take this argument into a courtroom.

And as such, there must only be one verdict when the court

comes to consider whether she has been harshly dealt with in

being given a 14-year sentence. Absolutely not.

Think about the words of Christopher Spry. He was the foster

child who only last week waived his anonymity to speak to the

Echo.

He is now counselling victims in the Jersey care home

cruelty case.

He is a special person to be doing this work and was

remarkably brave to share his experiences with our readers.

Spry abused him for a full 14 years.

She ended up with a jail sentence that meant a year in jail

for each of those 14 years. And that should not be cut by a

single day.