CHARLES BARBER SENTENCED IN DARLINGTON AND NEWTON AYCLIFFE FOR CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
| Red Rose Database
Darlington Newton Aycliffe Child Sexual Abuser
In a case that has shocked the communities of Darlington and Newton Aycliffe, Charles Barber has been sentenced to serve time in prison after admitting to a prolonged campaign of sexual abuse against a young girl. The abuse, which began when the victim was just a child and continued until she reached the age of 11, has left a lasting impact on her life and has brought to light disturbing details of grooming and manipulation.
Barber, aged 65 and residing on Swan Street in Darlington, was convicted of four specimen charges of abuse that spanned from 1977 to August 1985. The court heard that the offences committed before September 1985, when legal reforms changed the maximum sentence for such crimes from ten years to five, resulted in a sentence of four years for each charge, to be served concurrently. Judge Christopher Prince, presiding at Durham Crown Court, emphasized that had the offences occurred after the law change, Barber might have faced a longer prison term. The judge’s comments underscored the significance of legislative timing in sentencing decisions.
During the proceedings, prosecutor Dan Cordey detailed the disturbing nature of the abuse. He explained that the victim’s first memory of the assault involved Barber sitting her on a sofa, recalling that she was wearing an Easter bonnet after winning a competition. Mr. Cordey described how the abuse became a near-weekly occurrence, with Barber attempting to justify his actions by telling the young girl that it was merely a game. He further revealed that Barber warned her that her mother would die if she told anyone about what was happening, a tactic aimed at silencing the victim and maintaining control.
The victim confided in her parents at the age of 13, and Barber was subsequently referred to a psychiatrist. However, police were not involved at that time. It was not until August 2007 that the victim reported the abuse to authorities, leading to Barber’s initial arrest. Despite a trial that ended in a hung jury, he was retried and found guilty in October of the previous year. Notably, Barber was deemed to have an IQ too low to participate in the proceedings by giving a plea or testifying, which is an unusual circumstance in such cases.
Following a period of remand, during which Barber was held in prison and hospital, he was reassessed and found to be fit to stand trial. He subsequently admitted to three charges of indecent assault and one charge of indecency with a child. Additional allegations of abuse in Newton Aycliffe and Crook, County Durham, in 2007, were left on file to avoid subjecting the victims to further trauma during court proceedings. Prosecutor Mr. Cordey explained that the decision to not pursue these charges in court was made to prevent the victims from having to relive their experiences through testimony, emphasizing that this did not diminish the credibility of their claims.
Defense lawyer Sam Faulks argued against suggestions that Barber had manipulated the legal process. He highlighted Barber’s frailty, noting that he walks with a stick and suffers from hearing difficulties. Faulks also mentioned an incident where Barber was assaulted with a pool cue while in Holme House prison, portraying him as a vulnerable individual rather than a criminal mastermind. He pointed out that Barber’s IQ scores, which ranged narrowly between 57 and 59 over a span of 15 years, demonstrated consistency and challenged the notion that Barber could have deliberately manipulated his mental state to evade justice.
Overall, the case has brought to light the tragic impact of grooming and abuse within seemingly ordinary communities, and the court’s decision reflects the seriousness with which such crimes are treated, even when legal reforms have altered sentencing guidelines.
Barber, aged 65 and residing on Swan Street in Darlington, was convicted of four specimen charges of abuse that spanned from 1977 to August 1985. The court heard that the offences committed before September 1985, when legal reforms changed the maximum sentence for such crimes from ten years to five, resulted in a sentence of four years for each charge, to be served concurrently. Judge Christopher Prince, presiding at Durham Crown Court, emphasized that had the offences occurred after the law change, Barber might have faced a longer prison term. The judge’s comments underscored the significance of legislative timing in sentencing decisions.
During the proceedings, prosecutor Dan Cordey detailed the disturbing nature of the abuse. He explained that the victim’s first memory of the assault involved Barber sitting her on a sofa, recalling that she was wearing an Easter bonnet after winning a competition. Mr. Cordey described how the abuse became a near-weekly occurrence, with Barber attempting to justify his actions by telling the young girl that it was merely a game. He further revealed that Barber warned her that her mother would die if she told anyone about what was happening, a tactic aimed at silencing the victim and maintaining control.
The victim confided in her parents at the age of 13, and Barber was subsequently referred to a psychiatrist. However, police were not involved at that time. It was not until August 2007 that the victim reported the abuse to authorities, leading to Barber’s initial arrest. Despite a trial that ended in a hung jury, he was retried and found guilty in October of the previous year. Notably, Barber was deemed to have an IQ too low to participate in the proceedings by giving a plea or testifying, which is an unusual circumstance in such cases.
Following a period of remand, during which Barber was held in prison and hospital, he was reassessed and found to be fit to stand trial. He subsequently admitted to three charges of indecent assault and one charge of indecency with a child. Additional allegations of abuse in Newton Aycliffe and Crook, County Durham, in 2007, were left on file to avoid subjecting the victims to further trauma during court proceedings. Prosecutor Mr. Cordey explained that the decision to not pursue these charges in court was made to prevent the victims from having to relive their experiences through testimony, emphasizing that this did not diminish the credibility of their claims.
Defense lawyer Sam Faulks argued against suggestions that Barber had manipulated the legal process. He highlighted Barber’s frailty, noting that he walks with a stick and suffers from hearing difficulties. Faulks also mentioned an incident where Barber was assaulted with a pool cue while in Holme House prison, portraying him as a vulnerable individual rather than a criminal mastermind. He pointed out that Barber’s IQ scores, which ranged narrowly between 57 and 59 over a span of 15 years, demonstrated consistency and challenged the notion that Barber could have deliberately manipulated his mental state to evade justice.
Overall, the case has brought to light the tragic impact of grooming and abuse within seemingly ordinary communities, and the court’s decision reflects the seriousness with which such crimes are treated, even when legal reforms have altered sentencing guidelines.