ALEXANDER WOOD RAMSBOTTOM CHILD SEX OFFENSES: APPEAL REJECTED BY COURT

In February 2006, a significant legal decision was made regarding Alexander Gordon Wood, a man from Ramsbottom, who was convicted of serious sexual offenses involving a 13-year-old girl. Despite his appeal efforts, the Court of Criminal Appeal in London upheld his original sentence, refusing to reduce the punishment handed down by Burnley Crown Court.

Alexander Wood, aged 42 at the time, was sentenced in August of the previous year after being found guilty of multiple charges, including engaging in sexual activity with a minor, inciting a child to participate in sexual acts, and attempting to commit rape. The court sentenced him to six years in prison for these offenses. Additionally, he was given an extended supervision period of two years, which means that if he breaches any conditions during this time, he could be recalled to serve more time behind bars.

The appeal, heard last Friday at London's Criminal Appeal Court, sought to have his sentence reduced on the grounds that it was 'manifestly excessive.' However, the court, presided over by Mrs Justice Rafferty alongside Sir Douglas Brown, dismissed these claims. The judges emphasized that the original sentencing judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors, including Wood’s personal circumstances and mitigation.

Legal representatives for Wood argued that the judge failed to account for certain mitigating factors, such as the fact that all the offenses stemmed from a single incident, Wood’s previously good character, and the abuse and harassment he endured following his arrest. His barrister, Justin Hayhoe, also highlighted that Wood was under considerable stress at the time of the offenses, citing his recent separation from his wife and a close friend’s suicide attempt. It was further noted that Wood had consumed an excessive amount of alcohol on the night of the incident.

Letters from family and friends of Wood were presented to the court, expressing their shock and disbelief at his actions. They described him as a person who was generally well-regarded and expressed their astonishment at his behavior.

In their ruling, the judges concluded that the original sentence was appropriate, balancing the need to protect the public with considerations of Wood’s personal circumstances. Mrs Justice Rafferty stated, 'The judge balanced the twin concerns of public interest and the welfare of the appellant and achieved equilibrium,' thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the original sentence.