BERNARD WATTS AND ROBERT HODGKINS FAIL IN APPEAL OVER SEX CRIMES IN EXMOUTH AND BIRMINGHAM

In July 2010, two men convicted of heinous sexual offenses committed decades earlier faced a significant setback as they failed in their legal attempt to overturn their convictions. The two individuals, Bernard Leslie Watts and Robert Alan Hodgkins, had been sentenced to eight years in prison after being found guilty of multiple sex crimes committed during the 1960s and 1970s.

Bernard Watts, aged 65, who resides at Bradham Court in Exmouth, Devon, was convicted of serious offenses including rape and indecent assault. His conviction was part of a broader case that brought to light disturbing allegations from his past. On the other hand, Robert Hodgkins, aged 69, from Morton Road in Harvington, Kidderminster, faced charges that included seven counts of indecent assault and one count of attempted rape. Hodgkins was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court on July 9 of that year.

Both men appeared before the London Criminal Appeal Court via video link from their respective prisons to challenge the jury’s verdicts. Their legal teams argued that the convictions should be declared unsafe and therefore overturned. The primary basis for their appeal was that the trial judge had allegedly failed to exclude evidence deemed unreliable from one of the victims, which they claimed compromised the fairness of the trial.

Specifically, Richard Benson QC, representing Hodgkins, contended that the judge did not adequately remind the jury of critical facts that could have influenced their decision. He also argued that the court improperly allowed evidence of Hodgkins’ previous conviction to be presented, asserting that such evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.

Despite these arguments, the appeal was ultimately dismissed. Lord Justice Leveson, presiding over the case, stated that there was no doubt about the safety of the jury’s verdicts. He emphasized the difficulty of cases involving historical allegations of sexual abuse, acknowledging that juries must carefully navigate through complex and often emotionally charged evidence. Lord Justice Leveson affirmed that the jury in this case had performed their duties with care and diligence, and that the convictions should stand as valid and justified based on the evidence presented at trial.