GARY HOWARD OF OKEHAMPTON ESCAPES JAIL AGAIN DESPITE SEX OFFENSES AND LETTERS TO TEEN GIRL

In a series of troubling incidents that have once again brought attention to the case of Gary Howard from Okehampton, the 31-year-old sex offender has managed to avoid imprisonment despite serious allegations and breaches of court orders. The events date back to 2016, when Howard was convicted of engaging in sexual activity with a 14-year-old girl in a park in Okehampton. Following this conviction, he was placed under a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO), which explicitly prohibited any contact with girls under the age of 16. Despite this, Howard, who has significant learning difficulties, including an IQ rated in the bottom 0.1 percent of the population and the reading and writing skills of a nine-year-old, violated the court’s restrictions by sending two letters to a 15-year-old girl in Okehampton between August 2016 and January 2017.

These letters only came to light last year when they were discovered at the girl’s home and subsequently shown to her parents. The authorities confirmed Howard’s authorship after handwriting experts verified his involvement. The content of the letters was concerning, especially given Howard’s known vulnerabilities and the fact that he was on a suspended sentence at the time. The letters did not involve physical contact but raised alarm due to the breach of the court’s protective order.

Howard’s legal situation was further complicated by his mental health and developmental issues. His defense argued that his autism, ADHD, and severe intellectual disabilities significantly impaired his understanding and judgment. During a hearing at Exeter Crown Court, Judge Peter Johnson acknowledged Howard’s limited intellectual capacity, stating, “Anyone who has seen the letters will realize that they are written by someone of very limited intellectual functioning ability. It is almost as if they were being written as an equal rather than as a predatory adult.” The judge also noted that the letters were written before the probation service’s intervention could take effect following the 2016 sentence, and that Howard’s self-imposed social isolation over the past three years served as a form of punishment.

Howard, who resides at Turpins Plot in Okehampton, admitted to breaching the SHPO. As part of his sentence, he was ordered to undergo 60 days of rehabilitation activities under a three-year community order. The court decided not to enforce the original suspended sentence, which had not yet expired, due to Howard’s severe learning difficulties. The judge emphasized the importance of tailored support, stating, “The range of severe learning difficulties from which Howard suffers makes it clear that a typical sentence would not be appropriate.”

Prosecutor Miss Rachel Drake explained that the case was uncovered when the letters were found in the girl’s room and shown to her parents, prompting them to contact the police. Initially, Howard was accused of sexual activity with the girl based on the letter contents, but these charges were later dropped. Defense lawyer Mr. Lee Bremridge highlighted Howard’s autism, ADHD, and intellectual disadvantages, arguing that his offenses occurred early in the period of supervision and that he had remained largely out of trouble and living in near-isolation for nearly three years. He also noted that probation services recommended extended supervision to help Howard integrate into adult society.

In a separate but related case from October 2016, Howard, then aged 27, was involved in a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl. He received a two-year suspended jail sentence at Exeter Crown Court, a decision that was later challenged by the Attorney-General, Jeremy Wright QC. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence was too lenient given the circumstances, including Howard’s awareness of the girl’s age and the fact that they exchanged thousands of messages over social media, with Howard admitting to having sex with her three times. The court heard that the girl found the acts painful and uncomfortable, and Howard had scratched and bitten her during one encounter.

Howard’s defense pointed to his cognitive impairments, including a diagnosis of ADHD and suspected autistic spectrum traits, as mitigating factors. They argued that his vulnerability and lack of prior convictions warranted leniency. The judges, Lady Justice Sharp, Mr. Justice Nicol, and Mr. Justice Garnham, ultimately rejected the appeal, ruling that the original sentence was not unduly lenient. They acknowledged Howard’s severe learning difficulties and vulnerability but emphasized that the seriousness of the offenses could not be overlooked. The court recognized the complexity of Howard’s mental health and cognitive impairments but maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances, balancing compassion with justice.