CHRISTOPHER HEDGES SHAMES EASTLEIGH CHARITY WITH SEX OFFENDER REVELATION AND LEGAL BATTLE
| Red Rose Database
Eastleigh Sexual Abuser
In a case that has sent shockwaves through the Hampshire community, Christopher Hedges, a former chief executive of the Eastleigh-based charity Open Sight, is now embroiled in a legal dispute following his dismissal from the organization. The charity, which provides vital support, advice, and services to approximately 5,000 visually impaired individuals across Hampshire and southern England, finds itself at the center of a complex and sensitive controversy.
Hedges, who previously held a prominent leadership role within Open Sight, claims that his termination was unjust and has filed an appeal seeking compensation. He asserts that the charity failed to afford him a proper hearing before making the decision to dismiss him, and he is now pursuing an employment tribunal to seek redress. Hedges has publicly stated that he hopes to receive a financial settlement that would enable him to move forward and rebuild his life after what he describes as unfair treatment.
The background of Hedges’ departure from the charity is deeply troubling. It was revealed in January by the Daily Echo that Hedges had a criminal past involving child sex offenses. In 2004, at the age of 51, he was convicted and sentenced to three months in prison after admitting to five counts of engaging in sexual activities with a 14-year-old girl. The conviction came to light after the girl’s father discovered explicit emails Hedges had sent to her, which led to his arrest and subsequent conviction. Notably, Hedges had not disclosed this criminal history to Open Sight at the time of his employment.
Initially, Hedges’ role at Open Sight did not involve direct contact with children, and as a result, no criminal records check was conducted when he was recruited. However, over time, his responsibilities expanded, and he eventually worked with vulnerable young people. This change in his role has raised serious concerns among current trustees, none of whom served on the board when Hedges was appointed. They have publicly stated that had they known about his convictions or his registration on the sex offenders’ register, he would never have been hired.
Investigations into Hedges’ conduct during his employment and subsequent dismissal revealed difficulties in locating the original paperwork from his hiring process. It appears that he was not required to declare his criminal record at that time, which has added to the controversy surrounding his employment and the subsequent legal proceedings.
Hedges’ legal actions extend beyond his appeal for unfair dismissal. He previously attempted to influence the charity’s governance by calling an extraordinary general meeting, despite being suspended over allegations of bullying. Using his position as honorary company secretary, he urged members to vote to remove four directors, claiming they were neglecting their duties and putting the organization at risk. His motions were ultimately defeated by a significant margin, with 80 votes against and only 34 in favor.
As the case unfolds, Open Sight has refrained from commenting publicly on the specifics, citing confidentiality and personnel privacy. A spokesperson stated, “We cannot comment at present, as we will not discuss personnel matters with a third party. Any contact or discussion between Open Sight and Mr. Hedges must remain a confidential matter. In the meantime, Open Sight continues to serve its communities and is moving forward with a positive outlook.”
Hedges, who has since moved out of the Eastleigh area, specifically Boyatt Wood, told the Daily Echo that he feels he was unfairly treated by the charity. He maintains that he was not given a fair hearing and is seeking a financial settlement to help him recover and start anew. The case highlights the complex issues surrounding employment, criminal history disclosure, and the responsibilities of charities working with vulnerable populations, raising questions about vetting procedures and organizational transparency in Hampshire.
Hedges, who previously held a prominent leadership role within Open Sight, claims that his termination was unjust and has filed an appeal seeking compensation. He asserts that the charity failed to afford him a proper hearing before making the decision to dismiss him, and he is now pursuing an employment tribunal to seek redress. Hedges has publicly stated that he hopes to receive a financial settlement that would enable him to move forward and rebuild his life after what he describes as unfair treatment.
The background of Hedges’ departure from the charity is deeply troubling. It was revealed in January by the Daily Echo that Hedges had a criminal past involving child sex offenses. In 2004, at the age of 51, he was convicted and sentenced to three months in prison after admitting to five counts of engaging in sexual activities with a 14-year-old girl. The conviction came to light after the girl’s father discovered explicit emails Hedges had sent to her, which led to his arrest and subsequent conviction. Notably, Hedges had not disclosed this criminal history to Open Sight at the time of his employment.
Initially, Hedges’ role at Open Sight did not involve direct contact with children, and as a result, no criminal records check was conducted when he was recruited. However, over time, his responsibilities expanded, and he eventually worked with vulnerable young people. This change in his role has raised serious concerns among current trustees, none of whom served on the board when Hedges was appointed. They have publicly stated that had they known about his convictions or his registration on the sex offenders’ register, he would never have been hired.
Investigations into Hedges’ conduct during his employment and subsequent dismissal revealed difficulties in locating the original paperwork from his hiring process. It appears that he was not required to declare his criminal record at that time, which has added to the controversy surrounding his employment and the subsequent legal proceedings.
Hedges’ legal actions extend beyond his appeal for unfair dismissal. He previously attempted to influence the charity’s governance by calling an extraordinary general meeting, despite being suspended over allegations of bullying. Using his position as honorary company secretary, he urged members to vote to remove four directors, claiming they were neglecting their duties and putting the organization at risk. His motions were ultimately defeated by a significant margin, with 80 votes against and only 34 in favor.
As the case unfolds, Open Sight has refrained from commenting publicly on the specifics, citing confidentiality and personnel privacy. A spokesperson stated, “We cannot comment at present, as we will not discuss personnel matters with a third party. Any contact or discussion between Open Sight and Mr. Hedges must remain a confidential matter. In the meantime, Open Sight continues to serve its communities and is moving forward with a positive outlook.”
Hedges, who has since moved out of the Eastleigh area, specifically Boyatt Wood, told the Daily Echo that he feels he was unfairly treated by the charity. He maintains that he was not given a fair hearing and is seeking a financial settlement to help him recover and start anew. The case highlights the complex issues surrounding employment, criminal history disclosure, and the responsibilities of charities working with vulnerable populations, raising questions about vetting procedures and organizational transparency in Hampshire.