Ted Hankey’s Guilty Plea and the Sexual-Assault Sentence

On May 12, 2022, Judge Steven Everett sentenced Ted Hankey to two years in prison at Chester Crown Court. The former professional darts player had already pleaded guilty to sexual assault. The sentence also required him to sign the sex offenders register for 10 years, converting a criminal charge into a long-term legal restriction on his life after prison. Hankey had not been convicted after a contested trial. His case had moved from charge to admission, then to punishment.

The case began with an incident in Crewe, Cheshire, on September 10, 2021. The victim was described in court reporting as a woman aged between 16 and 18. Later coverage stated that the assault was caught on camera, placing recorded evidence at the center of the prosecution that followed. Hankey, who had built his public identity around two BDO world championships, was now identified in a criminal case involving a young woman and an offense prosecuted under the law.

The charge did not emerge from a sporting disciplinary process. Cheshire Constabulary charged Edward Hankey after the Crown Prosecution Service authorized the prosecution. That decision placed responsibility for the case with the criminal courts rather than with a darts federation or tournament organizer. The distinction was practical. A sporting authority might suspend a competitor or remove a title; the Crown Prosecution Service could authorize a charge carrying the possibility of imprisonment and registration after conviction.

By March 31, 2022, Hankey had been charged with sexual assault and released on bail. The case was then before the magistrates’ courts, where the initial criminal process dealt with the accusation and the conditions governing his release. The charge connected the police investigation to the September incident in Crewe. It also gave the prosecution a formal route toward trial or plea, depending on Hankey’s response when he next appeared before the court.

That response came on April 14 at Warrington Magistrates’ Court. Hankey pleaded guilty to sexual assault. District Judge Nicholas Sanders granted him conditional bail while the case moved to Chester Crown Court for sentence. The plea fixed the legal direction of the proceeding. Prosecutors no longer needed to prepare for a contested trial on the charge, and the court’s next task became determining the custodial penalty and the protective requirements that would follow Hankey beyond the hearing.

The guilty plea established Hankey’s criminal responsibility for the charge to which he pleaded. It did not produce a trial record in which a jury weighed competing accounts or heard a full contested presentation of the evidence. That difference shaped the public record. The case’s decisive documents were the charge, the plea, and the sentencing decision. The prosecution ended through admission rather than a verdict after trial.

At the sentencing hearing, the court also confronted the effect on the victim. A victim impact statement described continuing distress, panic attacks, and heart palpitations. She said she believed she had developed post-traumatic stress disorder. Those words brought the consequences of the assault into the same proceeding that would determine Hankey’s punishment, not as a sporting dispute or reputational crisis but as an account of continuing harm presented to a criminal court.

The sentencing judge’s assessment of Hankey was severe. Hankey was described as having shown “more self-pity than remorse.” The observation addressed his conduct after the assault and before sentence, and it helped define the court’s view of his response to the offense. The case therefore involved two separate acts of judgment: Hankey’s guilty plea, which resolved the charge, and the judge’s evaluation of his attitude when deciding the consequence.

Judge Everett imposed the sentence on May 12, ending the prosecution’s movement through the courts. Hankey received two years in prison. He was also ordered to remain on the sex offenders register for a decade, a requirement that would continue after his custodial term and impose continuing statutory obligations. The order extended the consequence beyond the prison sentence. It marked the court’s response not only in months of confinement but in years of formal supervision and disclosure requirements.

Hankey’s status as a former champion remained part of the case’s public context, but it did not alter the legal sequence. Cheshire Constabulary brought the charge after prosecutorial authorization. Hankey entered a guilty plea at Warrington Magistrates’ Court. District Judge Sanders granted conditional bail pending sentence. Judge Everett then imposed imprisonment and registration at Chester Crown Court. Each decision belonged to a different actor with a different authority, and each narrowed the available outcome.

The victim’s account also changed the scale of the case. The charge began as a criminal allegation tied to one September night in Crewe. By sentencing, the court had heard about panic attacks, heart palpitations, and continuing distress. The reported belief that she had developed PTSD conveyed the depth of the injury she described, while the two-year sentence and 10-year registration order defined the state’s response. The public record closes with those consequences: a guilty plea, a prison term, and harm that continued beyond the courtroom.