LESLEY RUDDICK FROM CHESTER SENTENCED FOR HISTORICAL SEXUAL ABUSE IN LIVERPOOL

A man named Leslie Ruddick, aged 69 and residing in Chester, has been sentenced to prison following the revelation of disturbing sexual offenses committed over five decades ago. The case was heard at Liverpool Crown Court last Friday, September 29, where Ruddick faced charges related to historical sexual abuse allegations that spanned from November 23, 1971, to November 22, 1978.

Ruddick had previously entered a guilty plea to four counts of 'indecent assault on a woman,' which was the legal charge at the time of the offenses. However, due to changes introduced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, these crimes would now be subject to more severe penalties, with maximum sentences ranging from 14 years to life imprisonment depending on the specific charge. Despite this, the prosecution highlighted a clerical error in the charges, which limited the maximum penalty for each to just two years.

The court was informed that during the period between 1971 and 1978, when Ruddick was between 18 and 25 years old, he repeatedly climbed into the bed of a young girl and used his fingers to penetrate her. The victim, who was between the ages of seven and twelve at the time, delivered a powerful personal statement in court. She explained how it had taken her nearly her entire life to reach a point where she could confront her past and speak out about the abuse.

In her statement, she described how Ruddick's actions had stolen her innocence and made her feel responsible for what happened. She recounted feelings of shame, self-harm, and hair-pulling, revealing the long-lasting emotional scars left by his abuse. The victim emphasized that the girl Ruddick targeted was unable to speak out at the time, but now, as a woman, she finally found her voice.

Legal principles such as the principle of totality, which aims to ensure that sentences for multiple offenses are proportionate and reflect the overall criminality, generally discourage judges from imposing consecutive sentences. Nonetheless, the prosecution argued that, given the limited maximum of two years per charge, consecutive sentences were necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of Ruddick’s crimes.

Ruddick’s defense lawyer, Jim Smith, contended that concurrent sentences—those running simultaneously—would be appropriate. He pointed to Ruddick’s successful professional and personal life since the offenses, suggesting that he had changed. The defense also highlighted Ruddick’s early guilty plea as evidence of remorse, despite the fact that Ruddick claimed not to remember the incidents.

Ruddick, who lives on Irons Lane in Chester, was also noted to be in poor health. Judge Atherton, presiding over the case, addressed Ruddick directly, stating, “You took an opportunity to sexually assault [the victim] when she should have been safe. There were severe consequences for her wellbeing. It was explained eloquently in her victim personal statement how it has taken nearly her whole life that she has felt strong enough to speak up about this. Throughout her life she felt she was not good enough. She has been called a liar. She has been made to feel she was at fault.”

In terms of sentencing, Ruddick was convicted of four charges—two involving penetration and two involving indecent assault without penetration. He received one year for each of the penetration charges and six months for each of the indecent assault charges. These sentences were combined and reduced to a total of two years, with a one-third credit granted for his early guilty plea. Despite the sentence being below the usual threshold for a suspended sentence, Judge Atherton stated that “an immediate custodial sentence is necessary.”

Ruddick will serve at least half of his two-year sentence in prison. Additionally, he will be subject to notification requirements for a period of ten years, reflecting the seriousness of his crimes and the need for ongoing monitoring.