A former clerk of Tynwald who exposed himself to a child has been spared jail after receiving a suspended sentence.

Thomas St John Neville Bates dropped his pants in front of a seven-year-old girl.

Afterwards he told the girl to ’keep it our secret’ and not to tell her mother.

The 75-year-old, who has his own consultancy company, pleaded guilty to gross indecency towards a person under 16.

At the Court of General Gaol Delivery Deemster Mandeep Kainth sentenced him to eight months in custody, suspended for one year.

He was also put on the Sex Offenders’ Register for 10 years and made the subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order for the same term.

Any breach of either could result in up to five years in custody.

Deemster Kainth said that grounds to suspend the sentence were that it was a one-off incident, there was no skin-to-skin contact, and it did not involve the victim touching Bates.

Prosecutor James Robinson told the court that, on July 3 last year, the girl’s family were visiting Bates at his home in Mona Street, Douglas.

They were playing in the garden.

Bates was said to have told the girl: ’What part of me do you want to see next? I can’t while your mummy’s around.’

He then played hide and seek with her and the girl told Bates she was going to hide a toy in the bathroom.

They both went into the house but once in the bathroom Bates took off his trousers and asked the girl to pull his underpants down.

She touched the side of them but did not pull them down so Bates then pulled them down himself and began shaking his penis.

The girl said he then lifted his top and made monkey-type movements.

She left the bathroom as Bates said: ’Wait, I need to pull my trousers up. Keep it our secret.’

He was then said to have lifted her up and tried to kiss her neck eight or nine times asking if ’he got her’.

The family left without the girl saying anything but later at her home she told her mother what had happened.

Bates was arrested and said to police: ’I think I’d like my lawyer.’

Various electronic devices were seized at his home.

He handed in a prepared statement saying that the family’s children had a habit of unbuttoning his shirt.

He said he had gone to the toilet and not realised the girl was there.

Bates admitted kissing her neck but said that there had been no indecency.

Mr Robinson read out a victim impact statement written by the girl’s mother in which she said that her children had never unbuttoned his shirt as he had claimed.

She said in the statement that Bates was someone she trusted and respected but described his behaviour as ’disgusting’.

The mother said that her family’s lives had changed since the incident and she was now afraid of letting her children play outside or go on play dates as she was suspicious of everyone.

She said her daughter was always shy but was now even more so since the incident.

Defence advocate Jane Gray handed in a number of character references for her client, including letters from his own son and daughter.

’The theme that runs through the letters is that they were very surprised to find Mr St John Bates in this situation. It was out of character,’ said the advocate.

Ms Gray asked for credit to be given for her client’s guilty plea, his age to be taken into account and the fact that he has no previous convictions.

’It is never easy for someone to admit their guilt in these types of matters,’ she said.

’We are looking at a one-off incident.’

Deemster Kainth said that if the incident had taken place in the garden it would have been classed as slightly higher than indecent exposure.

He said: ’Why you behaved in that way I do not understand. It’s something that hasn’t become apparent to probation or in your mitigation.

’It has not been suggested you deliberately wanted her to enter the house. I accept it was more opportunistic than any planning. It has not been suggested you groomed her.

’Because of your behaviour she is no longer able to interact and has become more shy.

’Let’s hope she can put all this behind her and move on.’

Bates was also ordered to pay £500 prosecution costs.

A charge of indecent assault and two counts of possessing indecent images of children were withdrawn by the court. He had previously denied those charges.