ANDREW JACKSON AND HIS SHOCKING CRIMES IN YORKSHIRE

In a highly unusual and controversial decision, a judge demonstrated apparent leniency towards Andrew Jackson, a man from Yorkshire who has a troubling history of sexual misconduct and stalking. Despite the grave nature of his offenses, which included stalking young girls and assaulting a disabled woman, the judge opted against sentencing him to prison, citing Jackson's medical condition and the potential cruelty of incarceration.

Andrew Jackson, aged 48, had engaged in two separate instances of stalking schoolgirls aged 13 and 14. His disturbing behavior also extended to an attack on a woman with a disability, whom he claimed was a prostitute. The case was heard at Hull Crown Court, where Judge Jeremy Richardson QC expressed a sentiment that many would find shocking. The judge remarked, "It would be cruel to send you to jail," highlighting Jackson’s diagnosis of Asperger syndrome as a key factor in his decision.

The judge acknowledged Jackson’s misconduct but emphasized the difficulty of imposing prison time without causing harm to someone with his neurological condition. He stated, "You deserve to be sent to prison. But sending someone like you to prison would be utterly cruel. You are very much to be pitied. You have never had a full sexual relationship. It must be very frustrating." Judge Richardson underscored his duty to protect the public, yet maintained that imprisoning Jackson would be morally wrong given his mental health and behavioral challenges.

The court proceedings revealed that Jackson had already attracted police attention before, having been spoken to twice for stalking children in playgrounds and wooded areas around the seaside town of Bridlington, East Yorkshire. One particularly alarming incident involved Jackson showing a 13-year-old girl a picture of his genitals. Police reports detailed that Jackson had sexually questioned two 14-year-old girls, asking them, "Are you legal?" He also assaulted a 21-year-old woman in a park, with her friend intervening after hearing her screams and pulling Jackson away.

The situation was further aggravated when Jackson falsely claimed that the woman had prostituted herself to him for 20 pounds, adding to the gravity of his offending. Prosecutor Martin Sharpe conveyed that authorities in Bridlington were especially concerned about Jackson's repeated conduct, leading them to seek a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) to restrict his access to children’s playgrounds.

Defense attorney Patrick Palmer argued that Jackson’s cognitive capacity was limited, with an IQ of 75. He explained that Jackson lived at home with his parents, was unemployed, and had suffered from an undiagnosed condition for much of his life. Jackson pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual assault by touching, with the court noting that the woman involved did not consent to the contact.

Judge Richardson ultimately sentenced Jackson to a two-year community order with supervision, aiming to modify his behavior and prevent future incidents. Additionally, he imposed a 10-year Sexual Offences Prevention Order and mandated Jackson to register as a sex offender for five years. In his remarks to Jackson, the judge emphasized the importance of protecting young girls, stating, "Young girls have to be protected in your area. You have to learn to control yourself. I regard sexual offenses as a very serious crime. Usually, the men involved deserve to be sent to prison. It would not be right here. It would be bordering on cruelty."

The judge warned Jackson that any further harassment or misconduct would lead to a prison sentence, underscoring the seriousness of future violations. This case has sparked debate about the balance between mental health considerations and the need for public safety in dealing with sex offenders in Yorkshire.