Pedophile sued a hotel for reimbursement of his money after he was imprisoned during his stay for sexually abusing a child

Stuart Eager, a 73-year-old man accused of pedophilia, has been suing the British hotel chain Premier Inn for three years for the return of £107.50, about $142, that he paid as part of his stay at one of its branches which was cut short because he was imprisoned.

Eager says he was forced to cancel the reservation because he was transferred to prison because of a conviction of sexual abuse of a minor.

The man had booked the room at the Portsmouth (UK) branch in May 2019, as the hotel was close to the court where his trial for sexual offences would take place. But he was convicted and sent to prison in just four days, so he asked for the return of the last two nights.

Despite his condemnation, an objectively more serious problem, Eager unleashed an extraordinary campaign to recover the relatively small sum of money.

The story of his obsessive attempt to recover his £107.50 came this week after Eager wrote to The Daily Telegraph describing his complaint and hoping to ask for help in recovering the money.

He told how he had booked a stay at a Premier Inn for six nights, paying the full amount upon arrival, when he was on trial “after a false accusation dating back 30 years.”

“I had no idea how long the trial might last. It lasted only four days and the verdict didn't go the way I wanted (juries are sometimes wrong). They sent me to prison for four years,” he says in his letter to the British media outlet.

“'Since it was not possible to call the Premier Inn from my prison cell to cancel the remaining two nights, I had my lawyer do it for me. It was too late to refund the first unused night, but a refund of £107.50 was expected for the second night,” adds the condemned.

According to Eager, when he was released on parole two years after the fact, he began a public claims campaign, which he has been carrying out for the past six months.

The convict says that the hotel denies any trace of the lawyer's call and argues that the cancellation should have been made by himself seven days after the reservation.

“It was mortifying enough to serve time for a crime I hadn't committed without Premier Inn trying to capitalize on my misfortune,” he wrote.

However, his attempt to get sympathy from the media failed, just as his claim to the hotel has so far failed.

The Daily Telegrah independently investigated the reasons for the old man's conviction and found that it was due to the sexual abuse of a choir boy, a crime described by the police as “shocking” and “depraved”.

The boy, who is now a grown man, initially kept his ordeal a secret and apparently developed addictions to gambling and drugs as a result of suppressing everything that happened.

“It wasn't until years later that he finally found the courage to speak up and seek justice. You argue that you are innocent and now you see yourself as a victim of unfair speculation by Premier Inn in the amount of £107.50. Leaving aside this gloomy background for a second, a look at the information he sent me shows that his lawyer called the hotel reception but, for unknown reasons, could not ensure cancellation and subsequent reimbursement on his behalf,” the media replied in another letter to the convict.

In addition, he pointed out that being imprisoned was no reason not to call to cancel the reservation, since in prisons you can use the telephone, and that this refusal seemed more like a way of preventing the hotel from investigating and discovering the reason behind his conviction.

“Given this, I am surprised that someone like you, who claims to have first-hand experience of a false accusation, is quite happy to drag his name through the mud in a national newspaper,” the letter adds.

The newspaper added that it was not prepared to make any consultations on his behalf and wished Eager “the best of luck.”

The Telegraph was bound by the convention to keep the identities of its correspondents confidential and therefore only published their initials.

But other media outlets like The Daily Mail were able to identify Eager and traced him to a residential house in Swindon, Wiltshire, where they interviewed him.

He told them that he did not apologize for what happened and that he still wants a refund of his money. He admitted that he may have “worried about the problem”, but said it was unlikely that he would continue his claim against Premier Inn in light of the response.

He also attacked the Telegraph writer for her response, saying: “I thought I was out of order. I thought it was a bit of an exaggeration because I'm not quite sure if it was relevant. My claim was against the Premier Inn in Portsmouth instead of digging up what history is”

The man says that “we should not believe everything that is read on the internet” and defends his innocence. In addition, he states that his claim “is a matter of principle”.

In May 2019, Eager was convicted in the Portsmouth Crown Court on three counts of indecent assault on an 11- or 12-year-old boy in the 1980s.

The former partner of the law firm, who was also a showgirl, assaulted the boy in 1988 on a farm in Hampshire. Eager encouraged his victim to sit on his lap and drive his car when he drove him home.

Eager, who had previously been convicted of similar crimes against young children in the vicinity of Wymering during the 1980s, denied the allegations but was found guilty by a unanimous jury.

After the case, Detective Sergeant Julia Nicol, who led the Hampshire Police investigation, said the manipulation and abuse perpetrated by Eager had a significant impact on the victim's life.

“I was only 11 or 12 years old at the time of these crimes, which makes them even more shocking and depraved. The boy, now a grown man, kept this secret for decades, during which he struggled to cope with life and school, his identity and suffered terribly with his mental health,” he said.

“He was robbed of his childhood and he spent his adult life trying to accept the trauma,” he added.

Despite this, the man continued to deny the offenses when confronted by the media.

When asked if he had any concerns for his victim, Eager said, “As for the matter he was referring to, there were no victims he should consider.”

“I keep denying it. It was a false accusation and an unjust conviction,” he added.

KEEP READING