PAUL STUCKEY FROM ELLESMERE PORT INVOLVED IN CHILD SEX IMAGE CASE IN CHESTER

In October 2017, Paul Stuckey, a resident of Ellesmere Port, found himself at the center of a controversial legal decision following allegations related to child pornography and inappropriate conduct at his workplace.

Back in September 2017, Stuckey faced serious charges after police uncovered a disturbing collection of indecent images on his computer. The investigation revealed a total of 296 images depicting children in various states of abuse, including six classified as the most severe category. Despite the gravity of these findings, the case took a unique turn during the court proceedings.

At Chester Crown Court, Judge Roger Dutton presided over the case. Stuckey admitted to possessing the child pornography but denied the additional charge of outraging public decency by photographing female colleagues’ bottoms at work. The incident involved Stuckey taking multiple photographs and videos of female coworkers’ bottoms, purportedly for sexual gratification.

However, Judge Dutton, aligning with prosecutors’ recommendations, decided that pursuing the charge related to the photographs would not serve the public interest. Consequently, he ordered that this particular charge be left on file, effectively dismissing it from the case. The judge’s decision was influenced by his previous involvement in notable cases, such as the Gayle Newland case, where a woman deceived her partner into sexual acts using a fake penis.

While the court chose not to prosecute Stuckey for the photographs, the judge expressed skepticism about his claim that his motives were non-sexual. During the hearing, he questioned Stuckey’s defense solicitor, Chris Hunt, about the nature of his client’s interest in women’s bottoms. Mr. Hunt argued that taking photographs of women in public spaces, where no private act was involved, should not be considered criminal.

Stuckey’s actions took place over a period from June 2014 to February 2017, during which he took the photographs of a female colleague’s bottoms. The police seized his computer during their investigation. His defense also referenced the case of Gina Martin, a campaigner advocating for stricter laws against upskirting, which is currently classified as outraging public decency rather than a sexual offence. Martin’s petition, which has garnered nearly 65,000 signatures, aims to have upskirting included under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, thereby increasing penalties for such acts.

Gina Martin’s campaign was sparked after she was 'upskirted' at the British Summer Time Festival in London’s Hyde Park. The current legal framework treats upskirting as a public decency offence, which does not carry the same severity as sexual offences. The petition calls for a clear legal distinction, emphasizing the need for victims to be protected under the same laws as other sexual crimes.

Justice Secretary David Lidington acknowledged the significance of the petition and indicated that the government was considering legislative changes. He stated in the House of Commons that he had requested detailed advice before proceeding with any new legislation, reflecting the ongoing debate about how best to address these issues.

Meanwhile, Gina Martin revealed that the Metropolitan Police had reopened her case after initially dismissing it, citing limited options for action.

In addition to Paul Stuckey’s case, his brother Steven was also involved in the investigation. Steven was found with 453 child sex images, including 12 of the most serious category A. However, Steven failed to appear in court. The brothers reportedly shared a small room in their residence, where they downloaded and stored the illicit images.

Paul Stuckey is scheduled to be sentenced on September 29, following the preparation of a pre-sentence report. The case highlights ongoing concerns about the possession and distribution of child abuse images, as well as the legal debates surrounding certain types of photographic conduct in public and private settings.