Youngest victim of paedophile Glitter to sue him for his pop music millions

A woman sexually abused by Gary Glitter when she was just ten years old is suing the paedophile pop star for compensation.

The victim, believed to be the youngest child molested by Glitter during his time overseas, was repeatedly abused by the depraved singer when an aunt took her to his home in the Vietnamese coastal city of Vung Tau in 2005.

A year later, the victim gave evidence at Glitter’s trial – he was convicted of molesting her and a 12-year-old girl and jailed for three years.

The glam rock star, who had a dozen UK Top Ten singles and sold more than 20 million records, is currently serving a 16-year prison term in Britain for historic sex abuse cases committed here between 1975 and 1980.

The Vietnamese woman agreed to launch her compensation claim in London’s High Court after a landmark case last year saw Douglas Slade, another British paedophile, ordered to pay £127,000 to five boys he had abused in the Philippines.

The woman is being supported by two international child welfare charities and she will give evidence to any future hearing via videolink.

Glitter – real name Paul Gadd – has accumulated an estimated seven-figure fortune thanks to his success in the 1970s and 1980s and from selling off the rights to his back catalogue in 1997.

He is believed to own a flat in London that he rents out.

Speaking to The Mail on Sunday from the simple, tin-roofed home she shares with her parents and brother in Vietnam’s rural Mekong Delta, Glitter’s victim, now 25, said: ‘I remember every detail of what he did to me. I have nightmares about it even now.

‘That’s why I have never had a boyfriend. I am afraid to have a relationship with anyone. I am afraid that what happened to me will happen again. I am also terrified that if I get close to someone, they will find out about my past and they will leave me.’

As a terrified youngster, she was forced to spend three nights in bed with Glitter, after he paid her aunt £58. Her parents – a construction worker and market trader – have always been too ashamed to tell other relatives about their daughter’s ordeal or to seek counselling for her.

The victim said: ‘If it had never happened, I would have been married by now.

‘I have many former schoolfriends who are married with two or three children. They have families of their own but I am alone.’ 

As a girl, she was among the brightest pupils in her class at school and her family hoped that she would go to study at university.

Instead, the psychological damage wrought by Glitter’s assaults led to her dropping out of school aged 14. 

She first worked as a farm labourer and now earns about £50 a month as a beautician offering hair and make-up services.

The compensation case is being spearheaded by the Preda Foundation, a Philippines-based organisation that supports victims of child sex abuse, and which initiated the legal action against Slade.

The 78-year-old was a founder member of the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange, which campaigned for the abolition of the age of consent in the 1970s and 1980s. Preda is working with the Jubilee Campaign, a British children’s charity, which is liaising with lawyers about submitting the woman’s claim.

Father Shay Cullen, president of the Preda Foundation, said: ‘The heinous crime of child rape in countries like Vietnam and the Philippines is a black mark on the face of humanity.

‘The victims continue to suffer as they receive little or no psychological help and are generally ignored.

‘Thousands of children are sexually abused by rich foreign paedophiles and sex tourists who escape back to their country of origin. We must pursue criminal and civil laws to get justice for the children.’

After his arrest in Vietnam in 2005, Glitter, now 75, faced the prospect of being charged with child rape – a crime that carries the death penalty. However, the families of his victims were each given £1,500 by Glitter’s lawyer in return for signing documents that reduced the charges against him from rape to molestation.

Speaking for the first time, the mother of Glitter’s victim said she still felt guilt and anger over what had happened.

‘They told me it was an arrangement for Glitter to pay for my daughter’s schooling and for her to go to university but it was a lie – it was just a trick so that he could escape justice,’ she said.

‘He should have gone to prison for longer for what he did.’

After years of suffering, Glitter’s victim has modest ambitions for the future.

‘If I get compensation, I would like to maybe open a beauty salon of my own,’ she said. ‘I want to be able to take care of my younger brother until he is grown up and married. Then maybe I can help to take care of his children.’