Callum Hesketh claimed the wife of his alleged attacker warned: ‘If my fella gets sent down, watch what happens to you’
A man made up a story about his alleged attacker subjecting him to threats at McDonald’s but was left in tears in court when his lies were rumbled. Callum Hesketh told the police that the wife of a man he had accused of assault accosted him while he was tucking into his fast food and warned: “If my fella gets sent down, watch what happens to you and everyone close to you.”
But this tale was proved to be a complete falsehood after officers studied CCTV footage and his bank transactions. The ill-fated episode resulted in him almost being sent to prison and the case being discontinued against his supposed assailant.
Liverpool Crown Court heard this afternoon, Friday, that Mark Wilkie was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and two counts of assault against Hesketh in relation to incidents dating back to June and July 2023. The 49-year-old, of Pitt Street in St Helens, failed to attend a magistrates court hearing in relation to these proceedings and was later fined as a result, but pleaded not guilty to the offences on January 25 this year and was released on bail.
READ MORE: He was left with blood on his hands after his visit to AsdaREAD MORE: Man cleared of murdering stranger over £5 debt
Johnathan Keane, prosecuting, detailed how Hesketh, of Queensland Avenue, then provided a statement to the police on January 31 claiming that Mr Wilkie had pulled up in a car beside him as he was walking near to a McDonald’s branch in the town and told him “look who it is, if anything happens to my kids”. His partner was meanwhile said to have added: “If my fella gets sent down, watch what happens to you and everyone close to you.”
After making a 21-minute 999 call, the 28-year-old was spoken to about the incident by detectives but was unable to provide any evidence that he had completed a transaction in order to purchase a meal as he had claimed. No such incident had meanwhile been captured by the restaurant’s CCTV cameras.
Hesketh, who was described as being “nervous and avoiding eye contact”, was then “challenged about making up the incident”. It was at this stage that he “confirmed to officers that he was in fact making it up”.
During a subsequent interview, he added that he was “angry with the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service for postponing the case” and said he had been forced to move house due to concerns for his safety. The assault charges against Mr Wilkie were subsequently dropped as a consequence of the false allegations.
Nicola Daley, defending, told the court: “It was not justified, but it was frustration with the system from someone who has no idea of how long these things take to sort out with some desperation in these circumstances. He accepts that there was definitely some impact on the administration of justice because of the police work that had to be undertaken.
“He does not seek to excuse what he did. He may have not fully understood at the time what he did, but it is clearly understood now. As soon as he was challenged, he admitted what he had done to the officers.
“He has known for the rest of this year what he has been facing, and that has been punishment as well. He is someone who was was diagnosed with Asperger’s when he was 12. He was someone who had a somewhat difficult start in life.
“He has never been in trouble before. He completed his schooling, went to university and now has a well paid job. He is self-employed, earning about £22,000 a year.
“He is someone who has his own vulnerabilities, which may explain why he did not fully appreciate the seriousness of what he had done in his frustration. He appears to show genuine remorse.”
Hesketh, who has no previous convictions, admitted perverting the course of justice. He wiped his tears away with a tissue in the dock as he was handed a 12-month imprisonment suspended for 18 months plus 100 hours of unpaid work and a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 15 days.
Sentencing, Judge Sarah O’Brien said: “You told the police that you made it up because Mr Wilkie was still walking the streets, while you had to move away from your previous address because of him. This allegation caused a significant amount of valuable police time to be wasted.
“Fortunately neither Mr Wilkie or his wife were arrested, but the consequences could have been much more serious. It was your actions that caused the prosecution of Mr Wilkie not to be proceeded with.
“This was unsophisticated conduct, but it was not an account from which you immediately resiled. The deception continued over a number of days until the police identified that it was a false allegation.
“The allegation against Mr Wilkie and his wife was a very serious offence. The intended consequences were serious. You intended for him to be arrested. Police time has been wasted on a false complaint. A criminal case collapsed as a result of that false allegation.
“There are mitigating factors. You have mental health issues arising from neurodiversity, which I have no doubt contributed to the way in which this offending unfolded. You are remorseful.
“Your offence involved interference with the administration of justice. It undermines the very system that is there to protect us all. That is why offences such as this are treated so seriously by the courts. In essence, those who interfere with the administration of justice can expect to go to prison.
“There is strong personal mitigation. Immediate custody will result in a harmful impact on your mother. There is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, I have no doubt about that.
“This is your first offence and you have otherwise led a positive life. In the very particular circumstances of your case, even taking into account the very serious nature of the offence, it is just possible for the court to step back from an immediate custodial sentence.”
