DEVON SEX OFFENDER GORDON SUCKLEY GETS INCREASED PRISON SENTENCE
The Court of Appeal has subsequently increased a sentence deemed too lenient for a sex offender from Devon.Gordon Suckley was found guilty at Exeter Crown Court in February of committing multiple serious sexual offences against a child.
The 87-year-old received a prison term of nine and a half years.
However, this sentence was challenged by the victim and brought before the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
On Thursday, May 18, Lord Justice Popplewell, along with Mr Justice Jeremy Baker and Mr Justice Picken, enhanced the sentence to 15 years and three months.
The judges commented that the initial sentence heavily favored the defendant’s mitigation and alleged health issues, and that a longer punishment was justified.
They noted that, despite the crimes occurring before current legislation, the maximum sentence limits did not restrict the judge’s decision.
Lord Justice Popplewell mentioned that the appropriate overall sentence, considering mitigation, should have been at least 17 years at minimum.
After accounting for a 10% reduction for the guilty pleas, the new sentence was set at 15 years and three months, plus an additional two years on licence following release.
The victim expressed relief, saying: “I felt that the judge in Exeter did his best but I didn’t believe the sentence was fair, which is why I appealed.
I’m thankful to the Court of Appeal for reviewing and imposing a sentence that better reflects the severity of his crimes.” Suckley's offences included three counts of indecency with a child and two counts of indecent assault committed in Helston, Cornwall, when he was in his 40s.
The victim was only 11 when the offences began, and the crimes are comparable to what would later be charged under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
The original sentencing in February took place at Exeter Crown Court, where the judge acknowledged the significant psychological harm caused and paid tribute to the victim, who was present during the hearing.
Suckley, appearing with crutches, was warned that he might not survive his prison term.
The Court of Appeal emphasized that a stricter penalty was warranted, removing earlier restrictions.
They pointed out that too much of the sentence had been reduced for mitigation purposes and that the severity of his crimes justified a longer punishment.
Following the appeal, the victim stated: “I am grateful to the Court of Appeal for reviewing and imposing a sentence that now more accurately reflects the heinous nature of his crimes.”
