Convicted murderer who kidnapped and sexually assaulted 15-year-old schoolgirl at knifepoint in ‘terrifying’ eight-hour hostage ordeal is jailed for life
Paul Sharpe, a former radio DJ who served 12 years for murdering a woman he had seduced through his phone-in show, has been jailed for life again after subjecting a 15-year-old schoolgirl to an eight-hour kidnap and sexual assault ordeal at knifepoint. The case has reignited criticism of his 2013 parole release, with relatives of his murder victim, Sarah Widdup, telling the Daily Mail he should never have been let out and calling for tougher sentencing for killers.
Sharpe, 56, grabbed the girl from behind in Altrincham, Greater Manchester in May 2026 while wearing a high-vis vest, forced her into his car at knifepoint claiming her father owed money, and drove her around for eight hours, plying her with alcohol and sexually assaulting her at multiple locations; he was arrested the next morning after police traced his car to a hotel car park. He had previously been jailed for life in 2001, with an 11-year minimum term, for strangling 28-year-old beautician Sarah Widdup in 2000 after she called his late-night show on Tower FM. He pleaded guilty to six offences including kidnapping, sexual assault and threats with a blade, and has now been given a fresh life sentence with a minimum of eight years, with the judge describing him as "every parent's worst nightmare".
- Former murderer Paul Sharpe jailed for life again over schoolgirl kidnap
- Held 15-year-old at knifepoint, sexually assaulted her for eight hours
- Victim's family and murder victim's relatives criticise his 2013 parole release
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those calling for tougher sentencing and stricter parole rules for convicted killers argue that once someone has taken a life, protecting future potential victims must take precedence over the offender's prospects of rehabilitation. They point to this case as proof that risk assessments made years after a murder can fail catastrophically, and that families like Sarah Widdup's endure lasting fear when offenders are released early. On this view, minimum terms for murder should be lengthened, and parole boards should apply a much higher, more cautious threshold before releasing anyone convicted of a violent or predatory killing, since the potential cost of a wrong decision is another innocent life devastated.
The case against
Those who support the current, individualised parole system argue that judging the whole framework by one tragic failure overlooks the far greater number of cases where risk-assessed release works safely and supports genuine rehabilitation. They would contend that parole boards rely on extensive psychiatric and behavioural evidence rather than guesswork, and that mandatory whole-life terms for all murderers would be disproportionate, hugely costly to the prison system, and would remove any incentive for good conduct or reform. They might also caution against judging a 2013 decision purely with the benefit of hindsight, noting that reactive policy shaped by a single horrific case risks producing blanket rules ill-suited to the wide variety of circumstances found in murder convictions.