DENNIS SANDWITH'S SHOCKING CRIMES IN WORKINGTON: A LEGAL NIGHTMARE AND THE RISK THAT LINGERED

In February 2008, a disturbing case unfolded involving Dennis Sandwith, a 69-year-old man from Workington, whose history of sexual offenses against young girls has raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of the justice system and the safety of the community.

Sandwith suffers from a mental disorder that complicates his detention. According to court reports, his condition renders him too ill to be imprisoned but not ill enough to be confined within a psychiatric hospital. This peculiar legal situation has left authorities with limited options, despite the clear risk he poses to children.

At Carlisle Crown Court, Judge Barbara Forrester presided over Sandwith’s sentencing. She expressed her awareness of the danger he still represented, stating, “My hands are tied. I have no other power open to me,” when she sentenced him to supervision rather than incarceration. The judge’s words underscored the frustrating reality that, despite her recognition of his ongoing threat, the law constrained her actions.

Historically, Sandwith’s criminal record includes a previous conviction in 1980 for indecent assault on a young girl. He was given a three-year probation sentence at that time. However, his criminal behavior did not cease. He began grooming his second victim when she was just seven years old, eventually forcing her into sexual acts. The severity of his offenses was compounded by the fact that he had committed these acts in the late 1970s, shortly before his probation.

In the recent case, Sandwith was found to have raped a nine-year-old girl and sexually abused her as she grew older. Due to his mental health issues, he was deemed unfit to plead to the charges, which complicated the legal proceedings. Despite this, the court imposed a two-year supervision order, restricting his contact with minors under 16 and banning him from unsupervised interactions with children.

Throughout the past six months, Sandwith’s case has been a focus of multiple court appearances. Judge Forrester explained that her hands were “tied by legislation,” limiting her options to either granting him an absolute discharge—an option she deemed “totally inappropriate”—or placing him under supervision with social workers or probation officers. The complexity of his mental health condition has necessitated extensive psychiatric evaluations.

In February, the case was unexpectedly adjourned after it was revealed that Sandwith was showing signs of recovery, raising hopes that he might be treated like any other criminal. However, in the final psychiatric report, Professor Donald Grubin indicated that although Sandwith’s condition might have improved, the stress of ongoing court proceedings could trigger a relapse. The professor emphasized that, despite a lowered risk to other girls, Sandwith still posed a significant threat.

Judge Forrester acknowledged the delicate balance between public safety and the limitations imposed by his mental health. She expressed concern that releasing him into the community, even under supervision, might not provide sufficient protection. She stressed the importance of full disclosure to those involved in his care, including his primary carer, an elderly woman who has been his guardian and who has previously refused to accept his guilt.

Addressing her final remarks to the carer, the judge said, “I hope that the lady who cares for you, and who has accompanied you here today and throughout all your appearances in this court, is taking note of all this, as you will continue to live in her house.” She warned that Sandwith remains a low risk but urged her to ensure he has no opportunity to reoffend, emphasizing the community’s need for vigilance and responsible supervision.