CART SUTCLIFFE FROM CODNOR SENTENCED AFTER GROOMING 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL IN DERBYSHIRE
| Red Rose Database
Codnor Child Sexual Abuser
In October 2015, a man from Codnor, named Carl Sutcliffe, was subjected to a court hearing in Derby Crown Court following serious allegations of grooming and inappropriate conduct involving a young girl. Sutcliffe, aged 46 and residing at White Gates in Codnor, had previously admitted to engaging in sexual activity with a girl under the age of 16, as well as possessing indecent images of children. His appearance in court was marked by a sentencing hearing that aimed to address the gravity of his actions and determine appropriate penalties.
According to court reports, Sutcliffe’s interactions with the victim began at a local pub in Codnor, where she was accompanied by her family. It was during this social gathering that Sutcliffe first made contact with the young girl. Following this initial meeting, Sutcliffe was invited by her family to return to her home for further drinks, which he did. The court heard that during this visit, around 1am, Sutcliffe crossed boundaries by touching the girl’s breasts over her clothing in the kitchen area. The victim responded by pushing his hand away, and Sutcliffe then asked her to accompany him to the toilet, a request she refused. Following this incident, Sutcliffe left the girl’s home.
The following day, the victim reached out to Sutcliffe by sending him a friend request on Facebook. Sutcliffe accepted this request, and the two began communicating online. Over the course of their online exchanges, they sent each other inappropriate photographs. Prosecutor Mr. David Thatcher explained that Sutcliffe took measures to hide these images by storing them in a concealed vault on his phone, indicating an awareness of the illicit nature of their exchanges.
Further complicating the case, the victim’s mother discovered a text message from her daughter to Sutcliffe, which raised suspicions. The mother then contacted Sutcliffe directly, warning him that she was aware of the situation and threatening to report him to the police. This discovery prompted the authorities to become involved, leading to Sutcliffe’s arrest and subsequent court proceedings.
During the sentencing, Recorder D Smith expressed his view that Sutcliffe did not pose a risk to other children but criticized his foolishness in engaging with a young girl who was clearly underage. The judge remarked that Sutcliffe should have recognized the inappropriateness of his actions and refused to pursue any further contact. He emphasized that Sutcliffe’s belief that the girl found him attractive was mistaken, and that he should have known better given her age. The judge also acknowledged that Sutcliffe was intoxicated at the time of the incident where he groped the girl’s breast, though he clarified that intoxication was not an excuse for such behavior.
In mitigation, Sutcliffe’s legal representative, Mr. Errol Ballentyne, conveyed that his client was deeply remorseful and had even contemplated taking his own life due to shame. It was also noted that Sutcliffe had been offered anti-depressant medication following a medical evaluation but had refused to take it. The judge recognized Sutcliffe as a hardworking man with a business and expressed that his remorse was genuine. Despite the seriousness of the offenses, the judge classified them as being towards the lower end of the scale, albeit still profoundly disturbing.
As part of his sentence, Sutcliffe was ordered to complete a three-year community order, undergo three years of supervision, and sign the sex offenders’ register for a period of five years. Additionally, he was mandated to attend a 120-day sex offenders’ rehabilitation program. These measures aim to monitor and support Sutcliffe’s reintegration into society while safeguarding the community from potential harm.
According to court reports, Sutcliffe’s interactions with the victim began at a local pub in Codnor, where she was accompanied by her family. It was during this social gathering that Sutcliffe first made contact with the young girl. Following this initial meeting, Sutcliffe was invited by her family to return to her home for further drinks, which he did. The court heard that during this visit, around 1am, Sutcliffe crossed boundaries by touching the girl’s breasts over her clothing in the kitchen area. The victim responded by pushing his hand away, and Sutcliffe then asked her to accompany him to the toilet, a request she refused. Following this incident, Sutcliffe left the girl’s home.
The following day, the victim reached out to Sutcliffe by sending him a friend request on Facebook. Sutcliffe accepted this request, and the two began communicating online. Over the course of their online exchanges, they sent each other inappropriate photographs. Prosecutor Mr. David Thatcher explained that Sutcliffe took measures to hide these images by storing them in a concealed vault on his phone, indicating an awareness of the illicit nature of their exchanges.
Further complicating the case, the victim’s mother discovered a text message from her daughter to Sutcliffe, which raised suspicions. The mother then contacted Sutcliffe directly, warning him that she was aware of the situation and threatening to report him to the police. This discovery prompted the authorities to become involved, leading to Sutcliffe’s arrest and subsequent court proceedings.
During the sentencing, Recorder D Smith expressed his view that Sutcliffe did not pose a risk to other children but criticized his foolishness in engaging with a young girl who was clearly underage. The judge remarked that Sutcliffe should have recognized the inappropriateness of his actions and refused to pursue any further contact. He emphasized that Sutcliffe’s belief that the girl found him attractive was mistaken, and that he should have known better given her age. The judge also acknowledged that Sutcliffe was intoxicated at the time of the incident where he groped the girl’s breast, though he clarified that intoxication was not an excuse for such behavior.
In mitigation, Sutcliffe’s legal representative, Mr. Errol Ballentyne, conveyed that his client was deeply remorseful and had even contemplated taking his own life due to shame. It was also noted that Sutcliffe had been offered anti-depressant medication following a medical evaluation but had refused to take it. The judge recognized Sutcliffe as a hardworking man with a business and expressed that his remorse was genuine. Despite the seriousness of the offenses, the judge classified them as being towards the lower end of the scale, albeit still profoundly disturbing.
As part of his sentence, Sutcliffe was ordered to complete a three-year community order, undergo three years of supervision, and sign the sex offenders’ register for a period of five years. Additionally, he was mandated to attend a 120-day sex offenders’ rehabilitation program. These measures aim to monitor and support Sutcliffe’s reintegration into society while safeguarding the community from potential harm.