PETER WRIGHT'S SHOCKING SEXUAL ABUSE IN CAMBRIDGE: COURT OF APPEAL REDUCES SENTENCE

In a significant development in a long-standing case of child abuse, Peter Wright, a babysitter from Cambridge, has seen his prison sentence shortened after an appeal. Originally sentenced to 12 years in February 2014 for a series of heinous crimes committed in the late 1980s, Wright’s term has now been reduced to 10 years and six months by the Court of Appeal.

Wright, who resided on St Bede’s Crescent in Cambridge, was convicted of sexually abusing three young children—two boys and one girl—over an eight-month period. The victims, all under the age of 12 at the time, endured a series of disturbing assaults while in Wright’s care. The crimes spanned from indecent assault to acts of indecency with a child, with the most severe incident involving the young boy being lured into a bedroom, where Wright stripped himself and the child before abusing him.

The court heard that Wright targeted each child individually, ensuring they were isolated from one another to prevent them from realizing the extent of his abuse. One of the victims recounted how Wright would read them bedtime stories before subjecting them to abuse, while another described being fondled and kissed, and one boy was forced to perform sexual acts. The abuse only ceased when Wright was suspected of offering alcohol to the children at a park, which led to him being barred from seeing them by another adult.

Despite the gravity of his crimes, Wright maintained his innocence, denying the allegations throughout the trial. Nevertheless, a jury at Cambridge Crown Court found him guilty of 13 counts, including indecent assault and indecency with a child. The court’s sentencing in February 2014 reflected the severity of his actions, with Judge Jonathan Haworth emphasizing the profound impact on the victims and the breach of trust involved.

However, during the appeal hearing, the Court of Appeal, comprising Judge Clement Goldstone QC, Lord Justice McCombe, and Mr Justice Supperstone, considered Wright’s conduct following the crimes. It was noted that Wright had led a blameless life for nearly three decades after the offenses, which the judges believed should be reflected in a modest reduction of his sentence. Judge Goldstone stated, “We think that the absence of any offending should be reflected in a modest reduction.”

The court also addressed the original judge’s decision to exclude the fact that Wright had not committed further offenses in the intervening years from the sentencing considerations. The appellate judges concluded that this was an error in principle and decided to reduce the sentence accordingly. The final ruling was to cut the original 12-year term to a sentence of 10 years and six months.

In the aftermath of the case, emotional statements from the victims highlighted the long-lasting trauma inflicted by Wright’s actions. One female victim expressed that she had been “tortured by what Peter did all my life and it haunts me,” while a male victim shared feelings of humiliation and ongoing mental health struggles, including anxiety, depression, and physical ailments. Some victims also revealed that they had battled substance abuse, marital issues, and difficulties forming close relationships with their own children.

Wright’s legal representation, Emma Rance, pointed out that her client had no prior convictions, and upon release, he will be subject to a sexual prevention order. This order will restrict any contact with individuals under 16 unless explicitly approved by parents or deemed unavoidable. The court’s decision underscores the ongoing concern for public safety and the importance of monitoring offenders even after serving their sentences.