Record details
A PERVERT has been jailed following the reveal of disgusting sexual crimes he committed over 50 years ago.
Leslie Ruddick, 69, was sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court last Friday, September 29, for historical sexual abuse allegations.
Ruddick committed the acts between November 23, 1971, and November 22, 1978.
The 69-year-old had previously pleaded guilty to four counts of ‘indecent assault on a woman’, which was the charge at the time.
This was changed in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and Ruddick’s offences would carry a far harsher sentence with today’s sentencing guidelines, with it being stated these charges would carry a maximum sentence of between 14 years and life in prison depending on the charge.
Whilst these charges may still have carried a larger sentence, the prosecution told the court that – due to a clerical error in the charge – each charge would carry a maximum of just two years.
The prosecution went on to describe how, on multiple occasions in Liverpool between 1971 and 1978, when he was between the ages of 18 and 25, Ruddick climbed into bed and used his fingers to penetrate a girl when she was between the age of seven and 12.
In a powerful victim statement, read out by the victim in person, the court heard how it had taken her ‘most her life to get this point where she could stand up to the abuse he did.’
She said: “He stole my innocence.
“I was made to feel like it was my fault, and I was called a liar. I took to self-harming, I even tore my hair out.
“I have carried the burdens of someone else’s actions for years.
“He must have thought that little girl would not have a voice, but that girl is a woman now.”
The legal principle of totality, which states ‘when sentencing an offender for more than one offence, to impose a total sentence which reflects the overall criminality and is just and proportionate’, generally dissuades judges from giving consecutive sentences to multiple offences.
The prosecution, however, argued that, due to the maximum of just two years per charge, consecutive sentences was necessary to reflect the seriousness of Ruddick’s offending.
Defending Ruddick, Jim Smith, however, argued that concurrent sentences, meaning they would run alongside one another, was suitable for this case.
They pointed to Ruddick’s successful professional and personal career since as the signs of him having changed in character and pointed to the early guilty plea as an admission of guilt and sign of remorse.
This is despite the fact that Ruddick, of Irons Lane Chester, claimed he did not recall the offences.
They went on to state that the Chester man was not of good health.
Judge Atherton, presiding over the case, said: “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.
“You are the father of three successful adults.
“Throughout the time you were successfully building a life, your victim was suffering throughout all those years.”
Of the four charges, two were separate to denote penetration, whilst two covered ‘indecent assault’ without penetration.
For the two charges alleging penetration, Ruddick received one year each. For the other two charges, the Chester man received six months each.
This total of three years was then reduced to two years, with the defendant receiving a full 1/3 credit due to his early guilty plea.
Despite this falling under the threshold where suspended sentences are typically allowed, Judge Atherton stated that ‘an immediate custodial sentence is necessary’.
A minimum of half of the two year sentence will be served in prison, and Ruddick will be subject to notification requirements for 10 years.
