WILLIAM PATTERSON SHILDON SEXUAL ABUSE CASE: MAN SPARED JAIL DESPITE HORRIFIC ATTACKS

In August 2008, a disturbing case emerged involving William Patterson, a 63-year-old man from Chestnut Close in Shildon, County Durham, who was found guilty of sexually abusing two young girls. Despite the severity of his actions, Patterson was ultimately spared immediate imprisonment, a decision that has sparked considerable public and legal debate.

According to court reports, Patterson’s offenses involved inappropriate physical contact with the young victims. Prosecutor Shaun Dodds detailed that Patterson, who was described as a good family man at Teesside Crown Court, had placed his hand down one girl’s top, touching her breasts and kissing her. The same court heard that he also kissed the other girl, actions that constitute serious sexual misconduct involving minors.

It was revealed that Patterson, a former rail worker, had admitted to charges of indecent assault and three counts of sexual activity with a child during proceedings in March. However, the sentencing was delayed as the court awaited the outcome of a separate rape trial in which Patterson was acquitted last month. This additional legal process added complexity to his case, but the court was informed that Patterson was deeply remorseful, ashamed, and disgusted by his own actions.

At the sentencing hearing, Judge Les Spittle acknowledged Patterson’s health issues, which were considered during the decision-making process. The judge sentenced him to eight months in jail, but this sentence was suspended for two years, meaning Patterson would not serve time unless he committed another offense within that period. Additionally, he was placed under a two-year supervision order and required to register his whereabouts with police for the next ten years, a standard measure for sex offenders.

Judge Spittle described Patterson’s behavior as “quite appalling and reprehensible,” emphasizing the gravity of the crimes. Nonetheless, in a controversial move, the judge decided against immediate imprisonment, citing Patterson’s early guilty pleas and the fact that his offenses were not among the most serious. The court’s decision reflects the complex balance between punishment, remorse, and the circumstances surrounding the offender, but it has left many questioning whether justice has been fully served in this case.