ROBERT BARKER'S REDCAR CASE: JUDGE'S LENIENCY OVER HEALTH CONCERNS SPARKS OUTRAGE

In a highly controversial decision made at Teesside Crown Court, Robert Barker, a 64-year-old man from Redcar, was allowed to walk free from the courtroom despite being convicted of serious child sex abuse charges. The ruling was based on medical assessments indicating that Barker's health was in such a fragile state that imprisonment could potentially result in his death.

According to court reports, Barker was found guilty by a jury of indecently assaulting a six-year-old girl during the 1970s. Initially, he faced charges of rape and attempted rape; however, the rape charge was dropped, and he was acquitted of attempted rape. The case had previously gone to trial twice, with the first jury unable to reach a verdict.

Judge Recorder Martin Bethel explained that multiple medical reports had been presented, which demonstrated Barker's poor health and suggested that the stress of incarceration could trigger a fatal heart attack. Barker, who uses a walking stick, had already suffered a heart attack, as was revealed during proceedings. The judge emphasized that Barker's health constituted an exceptional circumstance, leading to the decision to suspend his sentence for two years.

As a result, Barker was sentenced to 15 months in prison, suspended for two years, and was ordered to register as a sex offender for ten years. The conviction was for a specific period of indecent assault committed between January 1977 and January 1980. At the time, the maximum sentence for such an offence was five years, a figure that has since been increased, the judge noted.

The decision drew sharp criticism from David Hines, chairman of the North of England Victims Association and a trustee of the national Victims Voice organization. Hines condemned the court's ruling, stating, “We’ve had decisions like this before and they are a sad indictment of our society. Why couldn’t he have been sent to a secure hospital? People who commit these kinds of crimes don’t change. The only thing that might work is chemical castration.”

Hines also expressed concern about the effectiveness of the sex offenders’ register, claiming it is often ignored by those on it who go where they please. He questioned whether the court considered the victim’s health in this case, emphasizing that victims of sexual abuse are often scarred for life. The overall tone of his remarks reflected deep disappointment and frustration with what he described as another “crazy decision by the judiciary.”