CLEETHORPES MAN IAN HOPSON ESCAPES JAIL AGAIN DESPITE OUTRAGE OVER SENTENCE
| Red Rose Database
Cleethorpes Child Sexual Abuser
In a case that has sparked widespread outrage and public fury, Ian David Hopson, a 59-year-old resident of Cleethorpes, has once again avoided serving time in prison despite his involvement in a disturbing sexual assault on a young girl. The incident, which took place in August of the previous year, involved Hopson approaching a girl under the age of 13, offering her a pound to accompany him into a shed, and subsequently molesting her after she refused his initial request.
The events unfolded when the girl was playing football with a young boy in her garden. Hopson approached her and made the offer, but she declined. Despite her refusal, he entered the shed alone. A few minutes later, Hopson exited the shed and proceeded to molest the girl, during which he made inappropriate comments, asking, “Let me have a little feel. Did you enjoy that?” The girl, frightened and distressed, ran into a nearby house and sent a message to her mother via mobile phone, alerting her to the incident.
Following the report, police arrested Hopson, who initially denied any wrongdoing. However, evidence and testimonies led to his conviction for sexual assault. During the trial at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court, the prosecution detailed the sequence of events, emphasizing Hopson’s predatory behavior and the vulnerability of the young victim. The court heard that Hopson had previously been convicted of similar misconduct, which added to the public’s concern about his actions.
In November 2016, Hopson was sentenced at Grimsby Crown Court to a two-year prison term, suspended for two years. The sentence also included a 50-day rehabilitation program and a curfew from 8 pm to 8 am for six months. Additionally, he was ordered to register as a sex offender for ten years and was subjected to a ten-year sexual harm prevention order. The sentence, however, did not satisfy many members of the public and legal officials, including the Solicitor General, Robert Buckland QC, who publicly criticized the leniency of the punishment.
During the appeal hearing at London’s Appeal Court, the Solicitor General argued that Hopson’s sentence was excessively lenient and that he should not have been allowed to walk free. His legal team requested that the case be reviewed by senior judges, asserting that the original sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the crime. Despite these appeals, Lord Justice McCombe, sitting alongside Mr Justice Haddon-Cave and Judge Paul Batty, decided to uphold the original sentence. The judge acknowledged that the crime was “unpleasant and serious,” but concluded that Hopson did not deserve immediate imprisonment. He stated, “This was a short incident, unpleasant and serious as it was. In the circumstances, we consider that the judge was not in error in deciding that the appropriate sentence was two years, suspended for two years. This sentence was, as some sentences sometimes are, lenient. But it was not unduly lenient.”
The public reaction to the decision was one of intense anger and frustration. During the sentencing hearing, members of the gallery expressed their outrage vocally. One man stormed out, slamming doors, while a woman shouted and swore, exclaiming, “I don’t believe this. He’s not getting away with it.” Another woman called the decision “disgusting,” and threats were made as Hopson left the courtroom. A woman loudly swore at him and warned, “You wait,” while another man was restrained by security after attempting to approach Hopson menacingly and warning him, “I’ll see you later.”
Judge Jack addressed Hopson directly, acknowledging the public’s negative perception, stating, “You can see what other people think of you and that’s entirely understandable.” Security personnel were stationed outside the courtroom to prevent any further disturbances once the case concluded. The case has reignited debates over sentencing policies for sexual offenses and the adequacy of punishment for offenders who prey on vulnerable children in the Cleethorpes area and beyond.
The events unfolded when the girl was playing football with a young boy in her garden. Hopson approached her and made the offer, but she declined. Despite her refusal, he entered the shed alone. A few minutes later, Hopson exited the shed and proceeded to molest the girl, during which he made inappropriate comments, asking, “Let me have a little feel. Did you enjoy that?” The girl, frightened and distressed, ran into a nearby house and sent a message to her mother via mobile phone, alerting her to the incident.
Following the report, police arrested Hopson, who initially denied any wrongdoing. However, evidence and testimonies led to his conviction for sexual assault. During the trial at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court, the prosecution detailed the sequence of events, emphasizing Hopson’s predatory behavior and the vulnerability of the young victim. The court heard that Hopson had previously been convicted of similar misconduct, which added to the public’s concern about his actions.
In November 2016, Hopson was sentenced at Grimsby Crown Court to a two-year prison term, suspended for two years. The sentence also included a 50-day rehabilitation program and a curfew from 8 pm to 8 am for six months. Additionally, he was ordered to register as a sex offender for ten years and was subjected to a ten-year sexual harm prevention order. The sentence, however, did not satisfy many members of the public and legal officials, including the Solicitor General, Robert Buckland QC, who publicly criticized the leniency of the punishment.
During the appeal hearing at London’s Appeal Court, the Solicitor General argued that Hopson’s sentence was excessively lenient and that he should not have been allowed to walk free. His legal team requested that the case be reviewed by senior judges, asserting that the original sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the crime. Despite these appeals, Lord Justice McCombe, sitting alongside Mr Justice Haddon-Cave and Judge Paul Batty, decided to uphold the original sentence. The judge acknowledged that the crime was “unpleasant and serious,” but concluded that Hopson did not deserve immediate imprisonment. He stated, “This was a short incident, unpleasant and serious as it was. In the circumstances, we consider that the judge was not in error in deciding that the appropriate sentence was two years, suspended for two years. This sentence was, as some sentences sometimes are, lenient. But it was not unduly lenient.”
The public reaction to the decision was one of intense anger and frustration. During the sentencing hearing, members of the gallery expressed their outrage vocally. One man stormed out, slamming doors, while a woman shouted and swore, exclaiming, “I don’t believe this. He’s not getting away with it.” Another woman called the decision “disgusting,” and threats were made as Hopson left the courtroom. A woman loudly swore at him and warned, “You wait,” while another man was restrained by security after attempting to approach Hopson menacingly and warning him, “I’ll see you later.”
Judge Jack addressed Hopson directly, acknowledging the public’s negative perception, stating, “You can see what other people think of you and that’s entirely understandable.” Security personnel were stationed outside the courtroom to prevent any further disturbances once the case concluded. The case has reignited debates over sentencing policies for sexual offenses and the adequacy of punishment for offenders who prey on vulnerable children in the Cleethorpes area and beyond.