CONNOR HODGSON'S BRUTAL ATTACK IN STOCKTON LEADS TO INDEFINITE SENTENCE

In July 2012, a horrifying incident unfolded in Stockton, Teesside, where a 16-year-old boy named Connor Hodgson carried out a violent assault on a young girl aged just 10. The attack was so severe that Hodgson was subsequently detained indefinitely, reflecting the gravity of his actions and the threat he posed to public safety.

According to court reports, Hodgson, who was in foster care at the time, approached the girl as she was playing outside in her neighborhood. The prosecution, led by Tony Hawks, detailed how Hodgson engaged the young girl in conversation, offering to help her find her bicycle. They then moved to a nearby street, away from her home, where the assault took place.

During the attack, Hodgson wrapped his hands around the girl’s neck and applied what witnesses described as 'severe force.' The girl later recounted that Hodgson had told her he was preventing her from breathing, and she described feeling as if she had gone to sleep during the ordeal. When she regained consciousness, Hodgson was no longer present.

Her mother, alarmed by her disappearance, reported her missing to the police, prompting a large-scale search involving both law enforcement and the local community. After approximately two hours, the girl was found in a confused and unsteady state, covered in blood. Medical examinations revealed multiple injuries, including cuts and bruises caused by blunt force trauma. A doctor testified that the injuries involved at least seven blows to the back of her head and four to her face, with pressure applied to her neck. The doctor emphasized that these injuries could have been fatal, underscoring the seriousness of the assault.

Investigators identified Hodgson through CCTV footage showing him with the girl, which led to his arrest. During court proceedings, Hodgson pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm with intent but claimed to have no memory of the attack. He denied a charge of kidnapping, which the Crown accepted, and a not guilty verdict was recorded on that count.

Representing Hodgson, Duncan McReddie, acknowledged that his client deserved credit for the guilty plea but noted Hodgson’s difficulty in accepting his involvement in such a violent act. The court heard that Hodgson, who had a history of petty crimes and troubling sexual behaviors linked to past abuse, was considered a significant risk to the public.

In a decisive ruling, Judge Peter Fox QC overturned a previous court order that would have prevented Hodgson’s identity from being publicly disclosed due to his age. The judge described the attack as 'dreadful' and 'life-threatening,' emphasizing the vulnerability of the young victim and Hodgson’s role in rendering her unconscious through strangulation.

Given the severity of the case, the judge sentenced Hodgson to an indeterminate term with a minimum of five years for public protection. Hodgson will remain in custody until he can demonstrate that he no longer poses a threat to society.

Outside the courtroom, Detective Inspector Anne-Marie Salwey, the senior investigating officer from Stockton CID, expressed her satisfaction with the verdict but acknowledged that the damage inflicted on the girl could not be undone. She stated, 'The victim fears that he is still going to come back and kill her. Hodgson has proven to be very dangerous – the public protection aspect of the sentence reflects that.'

The girl’s mother, who is now on medication, described her daughter as a bright and beautiful girl who was aware of the dangers of talking to strangers. Despite making a good physical recovery, she continues to suffer from ongoing mental health issues, including severe phobias.

In April 2013, controversy arose when Stockton Borough Council refused to release the findings of a review into Hodgson’s care history. The council cited concerns that releasing the report would cause Hodgson 'further distress.' The review was initiated following the attack, which had sparked outrage in the local community, especially after Hodgson lured the girl away from her friends and subjected her to repeated violence on a riverbank.

Many residents questioned how Hodgson, with a known history of petty crime and troubling sexual behaviors linked to past abuse, was allowed to live in council care within their estate. The community demanded transparency, but the council withheld the report, citing privacy concerns and the potential for further harm to Hodgson. A reviewing officer, Julie Grant, explained that the report involved sensitive personal data and that its disclosure was unwarranted, especially given the conclusion of criminal proceedings.

Nevertheless, the council did disclose some procedural changes implemented since the review, including increased supervision for long-term cases involving sexual or medium to high-risk behaviors, better sharing of meeting minutes with relevant services, enhanced training on risk assessment, and more detailed recording of offending history on case files. The debate over Hodgson’s care and the community’s safety remains ongoing, with many still calling for greater transparency and accountability.