HOWARD BAKER EXETER FLASER SENTENCED TO CURFEW AND COMMUNITY ORDER IN DEVON

In May 2009, Howard Baker, a 65-year-old resident of Exeter, faced serious legal consequences after a series of disturbing incidents involving public indecency. Baker was convicted of flashing at young girls near a city school and subsequently received a combination of court orders aimed at preventing further offenses.

Following his conviction, Exeter Crown Court imposed a three-month curfew on Baker, mandating that he remain within a designated residential centre in Devon during specific hours. The curfew was structured to restrict his movements during critical times when schoolchildren are most vulnerable—namely from 7pm to midnight, 8am to 10am, midday to 2pm, and 3pm to 5pm. The court did not specify the exact location of the residential centre, but emphasized that Baker must adhere strictly to these restrictions.

Judge Graham Cottle explained the rationale behind the curfew, stating, “We need three two-hour periods to cover the school problem,” referring to the times when children arrive at school, have their lunch breaks, and leave for home. The judge also noted that a custodial sentence was not appropriate in this case, as Baker had already served a year in custody—more than the sentence he would have received for the original offense. Instead, Baker was sentenced to a two-year community order, which includes supervision and a requirement that he live where directed by his supervising officer.

During the sentencing, senior social services officials were present, as Baker was known to be homeless at the time. The court was informed that Baker suffers from Parkinson’s disease, and his wife has been attempting to care for him, though she has struggled to cope with his repeated offending behavior. Baker’s legal representative, Nick Bradley, confirmed that his client had pleaded guilty to breaching a suspended jail sentence for exposure, indecent exposure, and violating a Sex Offenders Prevention Order. Baker had previously been sentenced in November 2007 to a one-year jail term, suspended for two years.

The incidents in question occurred on May 19 of the previous year, when Baker exposed himself to young girls in a playground from the opposite side of a fence. He then continued his inappropriate behavior near the school, despite the restrictions imposed by his earlier order. Evidence was presented by a practice manager from Sycamores Community Service, who explained that Baker would be provided with a residential placement for a period of six or twelve weeks. This facility would offer 24-hour escort services and support with daily living skills.

Furthermore, the court was told that Baker would be referred to a general practitioner (GP) for assessment and possibly placed on a waiting list for cognitive behavioral therapy, aimed at addressing underlying issues contributing to his behavior. The court also discussed concerns regarding funding for alternative housing options once Baker’s stay at the residential centre concluded, should he require it.

Judge Cottle addressed these concerns, stating, “If that gives rise to problems at the end of his stay at the centre, then I hope it can be solved without being brought back to me because I’m not sure what I can do but I do see the point. You are being put to quite considerable expense in funding.”

He issued a stern warning to Baker, emphasizing the seriousness of the court’s orders: “If there is a breach of this order than I will have no option other than to send you to prison and hand over to the prison authorities the task of dealing with your failing health. Do not leave this court without understanding the situation you are in. If you are in breach, there is no option.”

The judge concluded by thanking probation officer Viv Savage for her assistance in supervising Baker, underscoring the importance of ongoing monitoring to prevent further offenses and protect the community.