WILLIAM MCALLISTER FROM BROTTON ESCAPES JAIL DESPITE SEXUAL ABUSE OF TEENAGER IN TEESSIDE

In April 2010, a significant controversy erupted within the judicial system when a judge publicly criticized the government's sentencing guidelines following a case involving William McAllister, a 60-year-old man from Brotton, east Cleveland. The case centered around McAllister's repeated sexual misconduct towards a 14-year-old girl, which included not only molestation but also the sending of explicit texts and an attempt to coerce her into performing a sex act.

During proceedings at Teesside Crown Court, it was revealed that McAllister had engaged in at least three separate instances of groping the young girl. The court also heard that he unzipped his trousers and tried to force her to touch him, actions that caused significant emotional trauma to the victim. The young girl, who was still in her early teens, was left suffering from anxiety, difficulty concentrating at school, and sleepless nights as a direct result of the abuse she endured.

Adding to the disturbing nature of the case, McAllister sent her a series of obscene messages, including one in French and German that read “I love you.” McAllister claimed during his trial that these messages were intended for his wife and had been mistakenly sent to the girl. However, the court found this explanation unconvincing, especially since the girl was studying languages and his wife did not speak French or German. McAllister also denied any physical contact, claiming that the girl had been the one to pester him, a defense that the jury quickly rejected.

After a brief deliberation of just 90 minutes, the jury convicted McAllister on three counts of sexual activity with a child and one count of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. Despite the severity of his actions, McAllister was sentenced to a two-year suspended prison term and ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid community work. Additionally, he was placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register and prohibited from using a mobile phone to contact anyone under 18.

Judge Peter Bowers, presiding over the case, expressed his disapproval of the sentencing guidelines, which he claimed limited his ability to impose a more appropriate punishment. He criticized the guidelines for failing to adequately consider the victims’ suffering, stating, “In many respects, the guidelines don’t pay as much attention to the victims as they ought to, but I am bound by them.” His comments echoed a broader concern within the judiciary, as he was the second judge in recent weeks to criticize the government’s approach to sentencing.

The case drew further criticism from child protection advocates. Claude Knights, director of the children’s charity Kidscape, remarked, “Sentences should act as a deterrent and there is nothing here that does that. A suspended sentence gives no solace whatsoever to the victim or her family. This man should have been given a more severe sentence and it is wrong that the judge was not able to do that.”

In a related case from Leeds Crown Court, Judge Kerry Macgill also voiced frustration with the sentencing guidelines. He was compelled to impose non-custodial sentences on a group of four young offenders, aged 17 and 18, who subjected a boy with learning difficulties to a brutal assault involving repeated kicks, punches, boiling water, hair straighteners, and stamping on his testicles. Despite their admissions of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the judge lamented the short sentences mandated by the guidelines, which he described as “ridiculously short” and said prevented him from delivering justice in line with societal expectations. He emphasized that the statutory guidelines were hampering the judiciary’s ability to impose appropriate sentences for serious crimes.