BRYAN HARWOOD AND RODNEY HUTCHINGS FROM CREWKERNE ESCAPE JAIL AFTER SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE

In August 2009, a disturbing case unfolded in Crewkerne involving two men who had previously admitted to sexual offenses against a teenage boy. Despite their admissions, both Bryan Harwood, aged 70, and Rodney Hutchings, aged 61, were not sentenced to immediate imprisonment. Instead, they faced a series of attacks from vigilantes in their hometown, which has left them fearful and vulnerable.

Since their court appearances, the two men have endured acts of violence and vandalism, including stone-throwing and damage to their property. Their shared residence in Crewkerne has become a target of hostility, with their double-glazed windows shattered by what appeared to be an air-gun pellet. The harassment has been so severe that Hutchings has had to leave three part-time jobs he was holding, according to legal representatives for the pair who appeared at Taunton Crown Court.

Both men had previously pleaded guilty to charges of indecently assaulting a male under the age of 16. Hutchings also admitted to creating an indecent image. During the hearing, Judge Stephen O’Malley acknowledged that the defendants appeared to have learned their lesson, and he opted for a lenient sentence. He handed down six-month prison sentences to each, suspended for two years, meaning they would not serve time in prison provided they remained law-abiding during this period.

The victim, a 14-year-old boy at the time of the offenses in April and June 1998, was described by prosecutor Janice Eagles as a young man who had started to 'go off the rails' about a year prior. She explained that the boy had begun running away from home, had a strained relationship with his stepfather, and was involved in drug use. The boy was considered vulnerable when he encountered Hutchings in a public lavatory, a place he used to hide when fleeing from his troubled home life.

Hutchings was perceived as a respectable individual, and the boy returned to his home after the incident. Both defendants believed the boy was over 16 because he demonstrated knowledge of sexual activity, but the boy himself stated he was sexually inexperienced, scared, and uncomfortable during the encounters. The court heard that the defendants thought the boy was mature and sexually experienced because he had discussed sexual contact with other males at age 12, leading them to believe he was at least 16. They claimed to have believed their actions were lawful at the time.

According to the defense, James Newton-Price, the men had been partners for approximately 45 years, living modestly and working diligently without any prior criminal record. They believed the boy was mature because of his conversations about sexual experiences, and they thought their interactions, which included visits to their home and two instances of sexual contact, were consensual. A short video clip was reportedly taken during one of these encounters. The offenses occurred in 1998, and the defendants believed the matter was closed afterward. The victim later visited their home around 2005, calling in for a social visit.

Both men expressed their shock and distress at being arrested, suffering significant social and emotional consequences. Hutchings believed he would never be able to work again, and both men relied on Harwood’s pension for income. They had lost confidence in leaving their home but received support from friends and neighbors who described them as decent, friendly individuals with no prior concerns about their character.

Judge O’Malley emphasized that the sentencing was based on the defendants’ belief that the victim was over 16. Harwood was convicted of two counts of indecent touching, while Hutchings was convicted of indecent touching and taking indecent photographs. The court acknowledged that the victim was vulnerable and suffered psychological harm, which affected his behavior in later years. Despite the severity of the case, the judge noted the positive references from the community and decided against issuing a Sexual Offenders Prevention Order, citing the defendants’ otherwise good character and the unlikelihood of reoffending. They were ordered to pay costs of £370 and to register as sex offenders for seven years, but no further custodial measures were deemed necessary.