August 2013

Judge says sex offender may pose a risk to females – and his lies did not help

A sex offender deemed by an Isle of Wight crown court judge to be an ongoing risk to females faces imprisonment

Jared Townley, 21 was found guilty of sexual assaults on two girls, following a five week trial last week

The first victim was at a party in Cowes on the evening of August 11 last year

The victim who got drunk and decided to stay in one of the host’s bedrooms as sexually assaulted as she slept

Townley of Adelaide Grove, East Cowes had partially undressed her before he sexually assaulted her and told her it was their secret room and no one but them would know about it. 

The female left the room and told fellow party-goers in another room hat had happened.

Townley admitted he that he had sexually assaulted her, but added it was by consent which the female strongly denied

During the same party, the other female confronted Townley about the attack on the first girl. She went to the police about a separate incident that happened at his home on an unspecified date sometime after June 2009

Townley was accused of sexually assaulting his second victim by penetration was aged 17 years old.

Townley also claimed that the incident never happened

Judge Price said:”It seems to me that there is something strange about this defendant. One cannot behave in that way without going to prison. He may pose a danger to females and his emphatic lies to the jury did not help him”

Townley was ordered to sign the sex offenders register

Note: Although the offences contained further on this page are not legally deemed paedophile acts, we firmly believe he will pose a risk to young females in the future

December 2014

Cab driver, 34, jailed for molesting teenage girl passenger

A MINICAB driver has been jailed for sexually molesting a teenage girl passenger after asking her why she was out on her own.

Nazar Abbas, 34, drove his private hire car so slowly that the 17-year-old was forced to take the wheel herself in a bid to get home sooner, a court heard.

Abbas, a married father, of Whetley Grove, Girlington, Bradford, was convicted by Bradford and Keighley magistrates in November of sexually assaulting his victim after 3.30am on June 15.

Yesterday, he was imprisoned for 26 weeks and ordered to sign on the sex offenders’ register for seven years.

Abbas, who is employed at a bakery, was working part-time for DCW Private Hire at Cullingworth, prosecutor Suzanne Paige said.

He picked up the teenager at 3.20am after she had been out with friends in Halifax town centre.

She sat in the back of the cab while Abbas asked her personal questions, including why she had been out on her own.

Miss Paige said the teenager felt uncomfortable and pretended to Abbas that she had a boyfriend.

When the cab slowed right down in an area she did not recognise, she asked him to speed up, saying she could drive the car faster.

Abbas stopped the vehicle and made her drive, putting his hand on her knee as he told her which pedals to use.

He stroked her thigh and asked how old she was, magistrates heard.

The teenager then swapped over to the front passenger seat and Abbas drove on with his hand on her leg, moving it up to her groin area.

Her father called her phone and Abbas sent back an automated reply, saying: “Sorry I am busy. Call back.”

When the cab had almost reached her home, in the Bingleyarea, the girl got out and told her parents what had happened.

The police were alerted and Abbas denied any wrongdoing.

He said the teenager fell asleep and he touched her on the leg in a non sexual way to wake her.

Abbas’s solicitor advocate, Alias Yousaf, handed in letters and references on behalf of his client.

He said Abbas had been in the UK for 13 years and had no previous convictions.

He was the sole breadwinner in his family.

Abbas still maintained his innocence and was appealing his conviction at Bradford Crown Court, Mr Yousaf said.

Jailing him, chairman of the Bench, Glen Armstead, told Abbas: “It was a very unpleasant assault on a young 17-year-old victim who was in drink at the time and therefore very vulnerable.”

March 2008

Pervert jailed after grooming schoolgirl on-line

A disgraced father has been jailed after he posed as an American teenage boy in an internet chat-room to lure young girls into sexually explicit web-chats

Father-of-two Paul Cummins befriended young girls on the website teenspot.com, and prosecutor Kerry Maylin said he “groomed them to the extent that they believed they were in love with him”.

The court heard the 36-year-old, who has a two year old daughter and a five year old son became friends with two girls – both aged 14 – via the site, and began to talk to them regularly in chat-rooms for up to four hours at a time

His seedy secret was eventually uncovered by his shocked partner who called the police

Mrs Maylin told the court that Cummins, of Simons Road, Chineham, made contact with girl A, who cannot be named for legal reasons, and very quickly told her that he was, in fact, a 35-year-old man, not a 15-year-old boy from America.

However, the conversations continued and developed into Cummins talking about his sexual fantasy, which was to have sex under water.

The court heard that the chats became much more frequent and led to girl A sending Cummins pictures of herself over the internet.

Mrs Maylin said: “During a 14-day period, about 27 hours of chat logs were mase.” She added; “He talks about painting her body with chocolate body paint and encourages her to put her face underwater and take photographs, because that’s his sexual fantasy.”

The court heard Cummins, who sat with his head in his hands for much of the sentencing hearing, asked to see girl A’s breasts and said he wanted to have sex with her.

Mrs Maylin said that a meeting was eventually arranged at a park in Oldham, near Manchester. Nothing happened between Cummins and girl A but he told her; “As long as I don’t intend to do anything, it’s okay for us to meet up.”

The court also heard that a significant number of text messages were sent between Cummins and girl A’s phone.

The second victim, who was also 14 at the time, was quickly lured into trusting Cummins. Mrs Maylin said Cummins asked girl B – who also cannot be named for legal reasons – for sex repeatedly, but she refused.

Cummins persuaded girl B to talk to him via a web-cam and asked her to look into the camera and say she wanted to have sex with him, but she declined. The pair did meet at a bus stop in Reading, but again nothing
happened.

The court heard that Cummins’ twisted pastime only came to light after his partner – the mother of his children – became suspicious about the amount of time he was spending on the computer and on the phone.

She found a semi-naked picture of girl A on his computer and subsequently contacted the police. Officers attended the home address and seized Cummins computer and phone.

The court heard that police found what they described as an “astonishing” number of text messages to and from Cummins and both victims. Further investigation was carried out and the chat logs were uncovered.

Both victims, who are not from the Basingstoke area, were interviewed and Cummins was arrested on August 28th last year.

Cummins made no comment when interviewed initially, before admitting he had been chatting to the girls and talking about sexual matters.

Mark Sullivan, defending Cummins, said there was no excuse for his client’s “unsavoury, unpleasant” and “totally inappropriate” behaviour over the three month period of offending.

However, he said Cummins had been suffering from, and taking medication for, clinical depression, which affected his state of mind and left him with barely any self-esteem.

“He may have found that talking in this way to these young girls somehow eased his own particular problems.” Mr Sullivan explained.

“He is extremely remorseful for the upset and embarrassment this has caused to the young girls and their families.”

Judge David Griffiths said Cummins had “taken advantage” of “immature and vulnerable” young girls and that his “disgusting and corrupting behaviour” was “planned and calculated”. He told Cummins “You were clearly aware of the process of grooming young girls.”

Cummins pleaded guilty of two counts of meeting a child following sexual grooming and asked the judge for a similar offence against a 12-year-old girl to be taken into consideration.

He also pleaded guilty to six counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and a single count of making indecent photographs of a child. 

Cummins was jailed for a total of 42 months, less the 172 days he has already spent in custody. He was also made subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) indefinitely, was ordered to sign the sex offenders register indefinitely and banned from working with children for life. 

The SOPO bans Cummins from using internet chat rooms or from seeking to communicate, or communicating, with children under the age of 16 without parental consent.

He is also banned from seeking, or being in, the company of children under the age of 16 without parental consent. Restrictions on unsupervised contact with his daughter were also imposed.

January 2015

West Norfolk man downloaded more than 2000 indecent images of children

A man who downloaded more than 2000 indecent images of children has been given a community order so he can get help

Ian Crown, 38, was found to have downloaded the images when police searched his address in Watlington, near Kings Lynn, Norwich Crown Court heard.

Crown of Rectory Lane, admitted possession of 2187 indecent images and was given a three year community order so he can attend the internet sex offenders treatment programme.

Judge Stephen Holt also ordered him to do 150 hours unpaid work and he was also placed on the sex offender’s register for five years.

John Morgans, for Crown said: “He is genuinely remorseful for what he has done and is wanting to tackle it.”

January 2015

Man who sent indecent images of children from his Northampton home given three-year community order

A 58-year-old man who has admitted distributing indecent images of children from a computer at his Northampton home, has avoided a jail sentence.

Alan Jelf was found to be in possession of more than 100 images of extreme pornography and 41 indecent images of children after police seized a computer from his address in Grange Park, Northampton.

Analysis of a memory stick by officers found extreme pornography that portrayed, in an explicit and realistic way, an act that was likely to result in serious injury to a woman.

Jelf was also found to possess eight indecent images of children that were in the highest category of seriousness.

In interview, Jelf admitted that he had distributed some of the indecent images to people he had met in internet chat rooms.

Ben Gow, prosecuting, said Jelf told investigating officers he had found the images upsetting and was intending to hand them over to police.

Mr Gow said Jelf admitted that he had used internet sex chat rooms for the past eight years and had passed on indecent images of children as part of a “role play” where he pretended to be a teenage girl.

He said: “The defendant said he wanted to understand the psychology of why people looked at these indecent images.

“He said he engaged in a research topic. He said he was appalled by the images and did not agree with what they were doing.”

Mr Gow said that Jelf claimed in interview that he had the extreme pornographic images because he did not realise they were illegal.

Judge Lynn Tayton QC, said she did not accept Jelf’s explanation for possessing the images and distributing them.

She said: “This was not stupidity or idiocy.

“There was sexual depravity involved in these images of children that have a long-term effect for those involved.”

Judge Tayton sentenced Jelf to a community order of three years. He must complete the community sex offender programme and he will be on the sex offender register for the next five years.

He must pay costs of £500 and victim surcharge of £60.

January 2015

Warrington sex offender jailed after grooming vulnerable child

A convicted sex offender was jailed for eight years after sending a vulnerable under-age boy explicit messages on line and taking him out on day trips.

David Loughead, 26, from Warrington pleaded guilty at Chester Crown Court to inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity.

He was already subject to a Sex Offenders Prevention Order after offences committed a decade ago and pleaded guilty to nine breaches of the order.

He has now been placed on the sex offenders register for life and given a restraining order against the boy.

Constable Allan Wolff, said: “Loughhead targeted vulnerable children and displayed no victim empathy at all. He was placed on the Sex Offenders Register 10 years ago and was issued with a Sex Offenders Prevention Order of which he was fully aware of the conditions, yet chose to completely disregard them.

“This sentencing has shown that Cheshire Police will do everything in their power to fully investigate cases of this nature and seek the strongest possible punishment for people who choose to commit them. The public can be reassured that sex offenders who break their conditions will be dealt with accordingly by the police, who will bring them to justice.”

Loughhead received a four year jail sentence and a four year extended sentence for inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and three years to run concurrently for breaching the Sex Offenders Prevention Order.

January 2015

63-year-old man who was convicted of abusing two girls over almost two decades has been jailed for six years

Leslie Kinvig, from Dalcross was found guilty of sexually abusing one girl between June 1981 and November 1986 when she was aged eight to 13 at addresses in Argylshire.

His victim told of how he would kiss and lick her neck touch her breasts and private parts.

Kinvig was cleared of a charge of raping the first girl when she was aged 13.

He was also found guilty of sexually abusing a second girl, from the age of 12, between 1991 and 2000.

The court heard that he made indecent remarks to her, touched her private parts and kissed her on the lips and neck.

At the High Court in Glasgow, judge John Morris QC also placed Kinvig on the sex offenders’ register.

Jailing him, judge Morris said: “The jury convicted you of serious sexual offences against two females.

“They didn’t accept the more serious charges against you.

“They convicted you of a catalogue of sex offences over a considerable period of time.”

January 2015

Jailed: Illegal immigrant who sexually assaulted girl, 12

An illegal immigrant who sexually assaulted a vulnerable 12-year-old girl in Swindon has been jailed for eight years.

And Sony Singh, who came to the UK from India, may be deported after completing the custodial part of his sentence.

Singh, 32, who was a friend of members of the victim’s family, sexually abused the youngster in Swindon on two occasions in late 2012.

Following a trial last November he was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault of a child under the age of 13.

But the jury cleared Singh, who gave the court an address in Leicester, of a charge of attempted rape.

Paul Trotman, defending, said his client still denied any wrong doing and was well aware that he was facing a lengthy jail term.

Before being remanded in custody last summer he said his client had been in a relationship with a woman and working hard to support her.

“He had come over from India really as an economic immigrant to better himself. He got a job and was keeping his family financially afloat,” he said.

“His immigration status, we are no further forward. All I have is a collection of letters passed to me by the defendant’s partner relating to an application for a visa to stay in this country.

“This conviction will have significant impact in that. I can’t tell you any more as far as that is concerned.”

Ian Dixey, prosecuting, told the court that the authorities are not aware how he entered the country so has no right to be here.

He said one of the grounds for the application to remain was his supporting his partner, which would now not be possible as he was in jail.

“My understanding is the Border Agency will consider his future in the country in the light of any sentence you pass and may take action at the expiry of that sentence,” he said.

Jailing him, Judge Tim Mousley QC said: “I have to sentence you for two offences of assaulting a child under the age of 13 in a sexual way.

“After you were convicted by the jury I told you that there had to be a prison sentence and the only issue for me to decide was how long that sentence should be and of course that remains the position.

“What makes this rather more serious is you didn’t just do this once but you did it again after you first did it.

“What makes this offence worse in my view are these factors: the victim was particularly vulnerable by virtue of her age and circumstances.

“You carried out these assaults on her at her home, there is a suggestion, certainly at times, that you were under the influence of alcohol when you had these offences in mind.

“To your credit you have no previous convictions, that reduces the sentence to a degree.”

As well as passing an eight year jail term he also imposed a restraining order banning him from contacting the victim for ten years and he must register as a sex offender for life.

January 2015

Plymouth man admits sexually touching girl

A MAN frequently assaulted a girl indecently over five years, a court heard.

Christopher Mabin, aged 51, repeatedly kissed the youngster inappropriately, Plymouth Crown Court was told.

He also touched her sexually over her clothing on two occasions.

Mabin, of Zion Street, the Hoe, finally incited the girl to touch him outside his clothes indecently, the court heard.

He was due to face trial but changed his pleas just before the case was opened.

Mabin pleaded guilty to ten counts of indecent assault between 1983 and 1988.

He also admitted a single charge of committing an act of gross indecency.

Julia Cox, for the Crown Prosecution Service, said the indecent assaults where he kissed the girl inappropriately were specimen counts.

Judge Paul Darlow, addressing the jury, told the court that Mabin may receive a suspended prison sentence with sex offender treatment.

He said it was quite a “complex case”.

The judge added that he had read a psychiatric report for Mabin.

Ali Rafati, for Mabin, said in interview the complainant had said that he was “child-like” in his behaviour, though he was in his 20s at the time.

Mabin was released on bail for sentence with the aid of a probation report on February 5.

January 2015

Sex offender and recent partner warned to expect jail sentences over breaches of order

A SEX offender is facing a further stint in prison after admitting breaching a restrictive order placed on him following a previous prosecution.

But a recent partner of Gordon Ross Taylor may also be jailed after admitting “aiding and abetting” him to breach a sexual offences prevention order.

The order, imposed at Mold Crown Court, in north Wales, in April 2011, forbade him from trying to communicate, contact or be in the presence of any child under 16, with whom he was not related.

Appearing via video link to Durham Crown Court from the nearby prison, 33-year-old Taylor, of Milbank Terrace, Station Town, east Durham, today (Tuesday January 6) admitted eight counts of breaching the order, on dates between January 2013 and August last year.

He was said to have been in the presence of, or communicated with four different children between the ages of two and 15, during that period.

Annette Jean Jones, 27, of the same address, who is of previous good character, admitted a single charge of aiding and abetting the breach.

Sentence on both was adjourned pending preparation of background reports by the Probation Service.

Remanding Taylor back to custody and Jones on bail, Judge Christopher Prince warned them to expect prison sentences on their return on January 30.

January 2015

Pervert jailed after he amassed thousands of indecent images of young children over a 10-year period

Police discovered almost 18,000 pictures of children being abused by adults at all levels of seriousness following a raid on Michael Stump’s home in Strood.

Maidstone Crown Court heard there was another 38,000 images which were “indicative of sexual interest in youngsters”, but not indecent or illegal.

Prosecutor James Ross said the 51-year-old widower, of Elaine Avenue, had been accessing the material on the morning of the police raid.

A computer and collection of DVDs were seized.

Stump claimed he may have come across the images while looking for adult pornography. He denied having an interest in children.

Mr Ross said as well as thousands of still images there were video clips totalling almost 20 hours.

Stump used search terms as “nine-year-old model” and “Russian teen girls”. He said he would “bulk download” the pictures.

He admitted possessing indecent images of children between 2004 and 2014 and was jailed for 16 months.

Simon Sandford, defending, said Stump was deeply remorseful and felt ashamed.

“He has become reclusive,” he continued. “He has given up work.

“He is so ashamed some family members are unaware of what he has done. He has made it clear he would never have acted upon his feelings.”

Judge Charles Macdonald QC said there had been a systematic search for the images on the internet, some of which involved sadism.

Stump’s name will appear on the sex offenders’ register and a sexual offences prevention order was made, both for 10 years. He will be barred from working with children and vulnerable adults.

January 2015

Pervert pleads guilty to a string of sexual offences against a young girl

A Bolton man has appeared in Bolton crown court to admit multiple sexual offences against a young female child

Driving instructor Geoffrey Needham, 68, of Crown lane, Horwich in Bolton has admitted to a total of 21 sexual offences which included various sexual offences on a child who was aged under 13 years old, possession of indecent images of children

Needham faced a total of 22 charges but pleaded not guilty to one charge and the judge allowed that one to lie on file.

The court heard that the female victim was just eleven years old when Needham first sexually assaulted her. The abuse lasted for approximately two-and-a-half years.

Needham will be sentenced on February 24th at Bolton crown court.

February 2012

Man is jailed for sexually abusing vulnerable girls

SEX offender Dean Howden has been jailed for seven-and-a-half years after abusing two vulnerable young girls.

He cynically tried to change his pleas from guilty to not guilty – and by doing so put the victims under added worry – after blaming his previous legal team for giving him bad advice, a court heard.

Howden, 40, formerly of Grimsby, admitted three offences of indecently assaulting one of the girls.

He also admitted sexual activity with the other girl and sexually assaulting her.

Patrick Palmer, prosecuting, told Grimsby Crown Court that Howden committed sexual acts with one of the two girls, who was very vulnerable and troubled, over a period of time after taking advantage of her. He later did the same with the other girl.

The offences all happened in the Grimsby and Cleethorpes areas.

Richard Germain, mitigating, said the offences were serious and so, for that, Howden “must pay the penalty”.

He acted out of character and had no previous convictions.

By pleading guilty, Howden had spared the victims the ordeal of giving evidence to a trial.

Howden, recently living in the Southampton area, was ordered to register as a sex offender for life.

Judge Jeremy Richardson QC told Howden: “You sexually abused two young and vulnerable girls.”

There were “limited threats” to the first girl and, although some of her behaviour could be regarded as consensual, Howden “exploited” her.

Judge Richardson refused to allow Howden to change his mind about pleading guilty – and rejected most of his claims that he had been given bad advice by his previous defence team, including barrister Andrew Bailey, who was among several people who had to give evidence to a special hearing about the matter.

After the hearing, one of the victims said: “It was the best sentence he could have got. It was the maximum he could have been given for the charges because it was a plea bargain.

“I am just glad it is all over now. It has taken a long time but we got there in the end.

“He is going to be on the sex offenders’ register so I know he is never going to be working with kids.”

15 February 2012

The convictions and the disposals

(1) Conviction on indictment and the disposal

[11] On 28 January 2010 at Aberdeen sheriff court the appellant pled guilty on indictment to the following charges:

“(1) on 3 November 2008 at Kingsway, Cruikshank Crescent, Hillocks Way, Netherhills Avenue, all in Aberdeen and elsewhere in Aberdeen, you … did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner, repeatedly follow … [complainer A] aged 14 years of age, …, an unaccompanied female, repeatedly stare at her and nod at her, place her in a state of fear and alarm and commit a breach of the peace;

(2) between 1 January 2009 and 31 January 2009 both dates inclusive at Victoria Street and Riverview Drive, both in Dyce, Aberdeen, you … did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner, repeatedly follow unaccompanied females in your motor car, repeatedly stare at them, repeatedly gesture to the lieges to approach you whilst in your motor car, place them in a state of fear and alarm and commit a breach of the peace;

(3) between 1 January 2009 and 11 March 2009 both dates inclusive at Netherview Avenue and Victoria Street, both in Dyce, Aberdeen and elsewhere in Aberdeen, you … did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner, repeatedly walk past … [complainer D], aged 15 years of age, …, an unaccompanied female, follow her in a motor vehicle, repeatedly stare at her and nod at her, place her in a state of fear and alarm and commit a breach of the peace;

(4) between 5 March 2009 and 26 March 2009 both dates inclusive at Netherview Avenue and Victoria Street, both in Dyce, Aberdeen and elsewhere in Aberdeen, you … did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner, repeatedly follow unaccompanied females in your motor car, repeatedly stare at them, place them in a state of fear and alarm and commit a breach of the peace

(5) you … being an accused person and having been granted bail on 23 March 2009 at Aberdeen Sheriff Court in terms of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and being subject to the condition inter alia that you do not approach or attempt to approach or contact … [complainer A] did on 26 April at George Street Aberdeen fail without reasonable excuse to comply with said condition in respect that you did approach and follow said … [complainer A]

CONTRARY to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 27(1)(b);

(6) on various occasions between 27 April 2009 and 1 May 2009 both dates inclusive at Asda superstore, Riverside Drive, Bankhead Avenue, Victoria Street and Stoneywood Road all in Dyce, you … did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner, repeatedly drive past unaccompanied females in your motor car, repeatedly follow them in your motor car, repeatedly stare at them, place them in a state of fear and alarm and commit a breach of the peace …

(7) on 1 May 2009 at Netherview Avenue, Dyce, Aberdeen you … did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner, follow an unaccompanied female in your motor car, repeatedly stare at her, place her in a state of fear and alarm and commit a breach of the peace …

For each of these charges a bail aggravation was libelled.

The circumstances

[12] All of the charges involved girls aged between 14 and 16, none of whom knew the appellant.

[13] On the date libelled in charge (1) complainer A was delivering newspapers. The appellant drove slowly past and looked at her. Then he drove slowly in front of her as she made her deliveries. He stared and nodded at her. The witness sent a text message to her mother telling her that she was scared because she thought that she was being followed. She asked her mother to meet her. When her mother arrived the appellant drove off. The complainer was visibly shaken.

[14] On a date within the period libelled in charge (2) complainers B and C were walking in the street when the appellant drove past. He repeatedly waved and gestured at them to come over. He stopped his car further down the road and then drove after them. Both girls were frightened and ran into the grounds of a nearby school.

[15] On a date within the period libelled in charge (3) complainer D was standing alone at a bus stop when the appellant approached her. He nodded and stared at her as he passed. This happened on four further occasions. Later, when he was in his car the appellant stared at her, gestured that she should come over and nodded as he drove past. She was by now afraid of the appellant and was unsure of his intentions. She told her mother. The police were contacted. Later, she was accompanied to the bus stop by her grandfather, who saw the appellant’s car and noted the registration number.

[16] The appellant was interviewed by police in relation to charges (1) and (3). He denied all knowledge of the incidents. After his appearance in court he was released on bail.

[17] On a date within the period libelled in charge (4) complainer E was standing at a bus stop when the appellant repeatedly drove past and stared at her. He stopped his car just past the bus stop and looked at her for about 5 minutes. On the evening of 16 March the complainer in this charge was with her friend complainer C when the appellant drove past and stared at them in his mirror.

[18] On the date libelled in charge (5) complainer A was standing at a bus stop when the appellant drove past and nodded at her. He then drove past in the opposite direction before stopping about ten metres away.

[19] On the date libelled in charge (6) the appellant drove slowly past complainers F and C and stared at them. On several occasions throughout the following day he drove slowly past complainer F and stared at her. On two occasions on the following day he drove past her and stared at her. He then stood outside his car and waved to her to come over.

[20] On the date libelled in charge (7) complainer C was walking to school when the appellant drove past and stared at her. She was upset and went to the police.

The sheriff’s decision

[21] The sheriff was satisfied that there had been a significant sexual aspect to the appellant’s conduct. These were his reasons:

“It appears from the Crown narrative that there were at least 28 instances of the appellant staring at a young female and numerous other instances when he either waved, gestured or nodded at the complainers. In some instances the gestures were of a beckoning nature, in other words, of a nature intended to invite closer contact.

While I readily accepted that the appellant did no more than that, it was the fact that he had repeatedly engaged in this behaviour over a lengthy period of time and that all offences involve unaccompanied young women, that persuaded me that there was a significant sexual aspect to his behaviour. The suggestion that there was any element of coincidence involved because these offences took place on streets along which the appellant regularly travelled, seemed to me to be stretching the imagination somewhat. While there was no direct contact between the appellant and the complainers nonetheless it was clear that his behaviour gave rise to alarm on their part. I also had to take into account that in relation to charge 5 in particular the appellant, despite being subject to a special bail condition that he did not approach or contact the complainer in that charge, did so. There was an element of persistence on the part of the appellant.

Accordingly, I found that there was a significant sexual aspect to the behaviour complained of as the behaviour was not only sexual in its nature but the behaviour was also persistent and the fact that young unaccompanied females were targeted by the appellant made the behaviour significant. There did not require, in my view, to be actual contact between the appellant and the complainers and in the absence of an innocent explanation which the appellant could readily and easily have given, sexualised that behaviour [sic].”

[22] The sheriff imposed a cumulo sentence of twelve months imprisonment, one month of which was for the bail aggravations. In terms of paragraph 60 of Schedule 3 to the 2003 Act (supra), he determined that there was a significant sexual aspect to the appellant’s behaviour. By reason of that determination the appellant became subject to the notification requirements of the Act for a period of ten years (2003 Act, s 82, supra).

(2) The conviction on complaint and the disposal

[23] On 13 April 2010 at Aberdeen sheriff court the appellant was convicted on complaint of the following charges:

“(1) on 8th January 2010 at … [a ground floor flat] you … did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner repeatedly ring the buzzer for the flat, loiter outside the window, throw snowballs at the window, repeatedly stare in through [a] window to the fear and alarm of the lieges and commit a breach of the peace;

(2) you … being an accused person and having been granted bail on 27 May 2009 at Aberdeen Sheriff Court in terms of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and being subject to the condition inter alia that you remain with[in] your home address, … between 7pm and 7am daily did on 8th January 2010 at [street of locus in charge 1], Aberdeen fail without reasonable excuse to comply with said condition in respect that you were outwith your home address between 7pm and 7am;

CONTRARY to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 27(1)(b)

(3) on 15th January 2010 at [locus in charge (1)], Aberdeen you … did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner, loiter outside the window, repeatedly stare in through a window to the fear and alarm of the lieges and commit a breach of the peace;

(4) on 19th January 2010 at [locus in charge (1)], Aberdeen you … did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner loiter outside the window, repeatedly stare through a window, ring a flat buzzer, utter sexual remarks, entice the lieges to come to the window, press a mobile phone against a window all to the fear and alarm of the lieges and commit a breach of the peace;

(5) you … being an accused person and having been granted bail on 27 May 2009 at Aberdeen Sheriff Court in terms of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and being subject to the condition inter alia that you remain with[in] your home address, … Aberdeen between 7pm and 7am daily did on 19th January 2010 at [street of locus in charge 1], Aberdeen fail without reasonable excuse to comply with said condition in respect that you were outwith your home address between 7pm and 7am;

(6) on 31st January 2010 at [street in Aberdeen] you … did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner watch the lieges, follow the lieges and run after the lieges to their fear and alarm and commit a breach of the peace … “

A bail aggravation was libelled for each of these charges; and in respect of charges (2) and (5) it was libelled notwithstanding this court’s decision in Robertson v Donaldson (2007 JC 175). No point was taken about this.

The circumstances
[24] The locus of charges (1), (3) and (4) was a ground floor flat occupied by female students one of whom was the complainer. On 8 January 2010 she realised that snowballs were being thrown at the windows. She saw a man passing the kitchen window. Then the buzzer rang. She answered and a male voice said “You’re gorgeous.” She made no reply and hung up. Snowballs again began to hit the windows and the buzzer continued to sound. She ignored this for a while but then spoke to her flatmate. They saw the man outside.

[25] On 15 January 2010 this complainer was watching television when she noticed a face at the window looking in through gaps in the blinds. She telephoned her flatmate who was on her way home. It was dark outside. This behaviour persisted for some time.

[26] On 19 January 2010 the complainer saw a man’s face at the kitchen window. He appeared to be trying to write a message on his mobile phone, which he held up to the window. He was standing close to the window and staring in. The buzzer sounded. When she answered a male caller said “You’ve a nice pair of tits,” then hung up. The appellant was later identified as the man responsible.

[27] The sheriff does not discuss charge (6) in his report. I shall assume that the evidence was in line with the Crown’s summary. The complainers were sisters aged 12 and 15 years and their friend, a girl aged 14 years. On 31 January 2010 they were playing with sledges. They noticed the appellant standing near to them and watching them. They went back to the sisters’ home. The appellant followed. The girls became increasingly alarmed. They started running. The appellant ran after them. The sisters’ mother heard their screams and shouts. She came outside to find out what had happened.

The sheriff’s decision

[28] The sheriff imposed a cumulo sentence of nine months’ imprisonment, three months of which were for the bail aggravation. He determined that the breach of the peace charges had a significant sexual aspect (2003 Act, Sched 3, para 60,supra) and directed that the appellant should be subject to the notification requirements of the 2003 Act for a period of ten years. In his report he gives the following reasons:

“In finding that there was a significant sexual aspect to charges 1, 3, and 4, I took account of the whole circumstances in which these charges occurred. Charge 1 occurred on 8th January 2010, charge 3 on 15th January 2010 and charge 4 on 19th January 2010. All three charges occurred at the same locus, … which is a ground floor flat occupied by female students. All incidents occurred when it was dark and all had similarities. It appeared clear to me that the accused had followed a course of conduct in which he deliberately targeted young adult females. His general behaviour was, in my view, seeking the attention of these females, that view being reinforced by the evidence from the witnesses regarding his remarks, namely ‘You’re gorgeous’ and ‘You’ve a nice pair of tits’. While the first remark might, in the absence of any other evidence, be viewed as simply a compliment by a male to a female albeit a complete stranger viewed in the context of the second remark it clearly had sexual connotations. His behaviour appeared to me to indicate a prurient interest in looking at young adult females and the manner of him doing so was inappropriate in all the circumstances. The comments made by him were, given that he had never met nor been introduced to the person in question, inappropriate. One has to ask oneself what it was that the accused hoped to achieve.”

The sheriff does not discuss his order for notification in respect of charge (6).

The appellant

[29] The appellant was born in 1988. He had no previous convictions.

Grounds of appeal

Conviction on indictment

[30] The appellant has lodged a bill of advocation and a devolution minute in which he contends that there has been a breach of his right to a fair hearing under article 6 of the Convention in that the indictment gave no notice that he might be subject to the requirements of the 2003 Act; that it could not be said, on a proper construction of the 2003 Act, that the behaviour had a significant sexual aspect; that standing the Supreme Court’s decision in R (F) v Secretary of State for Justice(supra), the relevant provisions of the 2003 Act are not law as they represent a disproportionate interference with rights under article 8 of the Convention; that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Commencement) (Scotland) Order 2004 (2004 No 138) was ultra vires, and that sheriff’s order was therefore incompetent; and that the actions of the Lord Advocate in prosecuting the appellant and moving for sentence in these circumstances were ultra vires by reason of section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998.

Conviction on complaint

[31] The appellant contends that the complaint served upon him gave no notice that he might be subject to the requirements of the 2003 Act and that accordingly there has been a breach of his right to a fair hearing under article 6; and that the sheriff erred in holding that the appellant’s behaviour had a significant sexual aspect.

Submissions for the appellant

[32] Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the libel did not clearly indicate a significant sexual aspect and did not give fair notice that the 2003 Act might apply. The appellant was entitled to be given such notice, in language that he could understand, before he tendered a plea. If the Crown contended that there was a significant sexual aspect, then that should be libelled. Thereafter it would be for the sentencing judge to decide whether to make an order. The correct approach would be to allow evidence and submissions on the point. The rationale of the notification requirements was to prevent further offending and to manage risk. The requirements were broadly proportionate but should not be applied to offenders unless they posed a risk. The key word was “significant.” The danger of a rigid approach was illustrated by section 82. An offender who was put on probation was subject to the notification requirements only for the duration of the probation order, whereas if he was admonished he would be subject to them for five years. While the appellant’s conduct was alarming, it did not merit a notification period of ten years. It had not been shown that he posed a demonstrable risk. The logic ofR (F) v Secretary of State for Justice (supra) applied equally well where the notification period was finite. An offender should have an opportunity to demonstrate that he no longer posed a risk, in which case he should no longer be subject to the notification requirements. It was anomalous that an offender who was subject to the requirements for an indefinite period could seek review but the appellant could not, when ex hypothesi he posed less risk.

Submissions for the Crown

[33] The advocate depute submitted that the appellant had been given sufficient notice to enable a defence to be prepared (Mattocia v Italy 36 EHRR 82). The information given to an accused and his agents was sufficient notice of any sexual element. They were presumed to know the terms of the 2003 Act. They had the opportunity to address the sheriff on whether he should make a determination, which cured any lack of notice. The matters libelled, when taken together, gave sufficient notice. The words “significant sexual aspect” should bear their ordinary meaning in the context of the aims of the legislation, which were public protection and the monitoring of sex offenders. Whether there was a significant sexual aspect was for the sentencer to determine according to the circumstances of the case. The sheriff had been entitled to conclude that there was such an aspect here. Parliament had been entitled to adopt a broad brush approach. It was proportionate that offenders who posed a minor risk were included, to ensure that any escalation in offending behaviour was detected. A fixed period of notification without review was proportionate. It did not follow from R (F) v Secretary of State for Justice(supra) that a review was required. The Supreme Court had stated that a high threshold could be imposed, which could entail that a review was not required where the relevant period was shorter. Statistics showed that the greatest risk was posed within the first five years of release, so the need for public protection was greater. To introduce a review procedure would have serious resource implications.

Conclusions

The meaning and effect of registration

[34] It will be apparent from the legislation that I have quoted that registration as a sex offender is not a sentence. The purpose of registration is not punitive. It is protective. It enables the police to keep tabs on a sex offender who is, or who may be, a continuing danger to others, and particularly to women and young people.

[35] However, although registration does not constitute a sentence, it is nonetheless a grave stigma and one which, designedly, places onerous restrictions and requirements on the registered offender’s life. In particular, the offender has the public status of sex offender. He is under a continuing obligation throughout the registration period to inform the police of his whereabouts and to notify them whenever he changes his address.

Scheme of the legislation

[36] The registration periods are not particularly sensitive to the length of sentence imposed. The scheme of the legislation is to provide for specified periods that apply to broad bands of sentences.

[37] The Schedule to the 2003 Act places convictions in two categories, namely convictions covered by the specific list and convictions covered by paragraph 60 (supra). The effect of the specific list is that, subject to certain minor exceptions, the commission of a listed offence, whatever the circumstances and whatever the degree of gravity, results automatically in registration. Paragraph 60 on the other hand can apply to any offence not so listed. Registration in this case does not follow automatically from conviction. It is imposed only where the sentencer concludes that there was a “significant sexual aspect” in the offender’s “behaviour.” It will be apparent from this that the significant sexual aspect is not necessarily to be found exclusively in the acts that are libelled. It could be found from a consideration of the whole circumstances surrounding the offence.

Requirements of fair notice
The problem
[38] These appeals raise a difficult question in relation to the application of paragraph 60. When charged with a specific list offence the accused will know from the libel itself that he will be subject to registration if convicted. In a case under paragraph 60, however, it may not be apparent to the accused that the question of there being a significant sexual aspect may arise. The problem is typically encountered in the following ways. Where it is alleged that the accused has touched the complainer inappropriately, the Crown may charge that species facti as indecent assault, or since 1 December 2010 as a sexual assault (Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, s 3), or as a simple assault or as a breach of the peace. Where it is alleged that the accused has exposed himself in public, the Crown may charge that species facti as a statutory offence under by-laws; or as public indecency (Webster v Dominick 2005 JC 65) or, since 1 December 2010, as sexual exposure (Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, s 8); or as a breach of the peace.

The Crown’s summary of evidence

[39] In summary procedure it is the practice of the Crown to serve upon the accused a statement summarising the Crown’s information as to the facts, the “summary of evidence.” The advocate depute argued therefore that in summary procedure, where most instances of this problem will arise, the accused will thereby receive fair notice that paragraph 60 may apply.

[40] I do not accept that in such cases the summary of evidence constitutes fair notice. The summary is not a complete safeguard. Experience shows that often the evidence puts a different complexion on the case from that which is shown in the Crown summary.

The terms of the libel

[41] In my opinion, if the Crown chooses to libel an offence that is not on the specific list, for example by libelling breach of the peace in either of the instances that I have canvassed, and libels it without further narrative, the accused is entitled to infer that the Crown makes no suggestion that there is a significant sexual aspect in the accused’s behaviour. If however in libelling an offence that is not on the specific list the Crown proposes, in the event of conviction, to contend that there is a significant sexual aspect, fair notice requires, in my opinion, that that should be narrated in the libel itself together with the alleged facts and circumstances from which that aspect is to be inferred.

[42] This is analogous to established practice in cases where the particular circumstances of the offence are relevant to the court’s powers on disposal. It has been held, for example, that a charge should libel that the complainer was below 18 years of age wherever that fact determines whether the accused is to be subject to the notification requirements (MacPherson v Gilchrist 2000 JC 463, Lord Prosser at para [15]).

[43] Where the offence libelled is a specific list offence, it might be thought that the matter of registration was open and shut, registration being an automatic consequence of the conviction. However, the discussion in this group of cases, and particularly in the case of Thompson v PF Glasgow [2012 HCJAC 27] has raised a particular difficulty in the case of indecent assault.

[44] In Grainger v HM Adv (2005 SCCR 175) I observed that indecent assault is not an independent sexual offence, that it need not be libelled as nomen iuris and that the offence was essentially an assault aggravated by indecency in the manner of its commission (para [17]). I concluded that where the question of certification of a sexual offence arose in such a case, the trial judge must take the conviction in the terms in which it had been returned by the jury and decide whether, in whole or in part, it disclosed an offence that had the quality of indecency that made it a sexual offence (para [18]); and, if he was in doubt on the point, invite submissions from counsel (para [19]). That was a case under the previous legislation and in that case the question of fair notice under article 6 was not raised.

[45] We now have to consider that question again, bearing in mind that although indecent assault need not be libelled as a nomen iuris, the specific list in the 2003 Act includes “indecent assault” (Sched 3, para 40). Taking these considerations into account, I have come to the view that where the Crown charges assault and, in the event of conviction, will contend that the assault was an indecent assault, fair notice now requires that the libel should specifically allege indecent assault eo nomine. I shall discuss this further in the appeal of Thompson v PF Glasgow (supra).

Facts emerging at the trial or thereafter

[46] There may be cases in which the accused is convicted of an offence not on the specific list where the question of there being a significant sexual aspect emerges only at the trial itself or where the sentencer, having received reports, takes the view that the reports shed a new light on the accused’s behaviour. In these cases, in my opinion, fairness requires that the sentencer, if minded to consider applying paragraph 60, should give the defence a proper opportunity to make submissions on the point and, if need be, lead evidence in rebuttal. In my view the sentencer should continue the case to a later date for that purpose.

[47] I am confirmed in this view by the consideration that if the possibility of there being a significant sexual aspect arises only after a finding of guilt, the defence may well feel that it would have conducted its case in a different way if this had been known.

May the sentencer raise the question of paragraph 60 ex proprio motu?

[48] I do not rule out the possibility that the sentencer would be entitled to raise the question of paragraph 60 ex proprio motu. However, in such a case, which I should think would be rare, the sentencer must give the defence the fullest opportunity to make submissions and lead evidence on the question.

The basis of a judgment on paragraph 60

The duty of the sentencer

[49] On the assumption that the Crown has given fair notice of its intention to rely on paragraph 60, the sentencer must decide the matter on the facts. If the accused is convicted after trial, the decision will rest on the terms of the conviction and such surrounding facts as are clearly proved. If the accused has pled guilty, the decision will rest on the terms of the conviction and on such parts of the Crown narrative as are agreed. If there is a dispute on the material issue of fact in such circumstances, the sentencer may have to hear evidence to resolve it.

[50] It is the duty of the sentencer to decide the matter for himself using these sources of information. He ought not in my opinion to have regard to any expression of view on this question that may be contained in a social enquiry report.

[51] Furthermore, I do not consider it legitimate for the sentencer to base his judgment on the accused’s previous or subsequent convictions. Such convictions do not fall within the category of the accused’s “behaviour” in the context of paragraph 60. The sentencer must make a judgment only on the accused’s behaviour on the occasion libelled.

[52] In my opinion it would be futile to attempt to define the word “significant” as it is used in paragraph 60. That is a question best left to the judgment of the sentencer. Since the purpose of registration is to protect the public against a perceived danger, the question whether a sexual aspect of the accused’s behaviour was significant should be assessed in that light. One way to approach that is to consider whether the sexual aspect is important enough to merit attention as indicating an underlying sexual disorder or deviance from which society is entitled to be protected (Wylie v M 2009 SLT (Sh Ct) 18, Sheriff Pyle at [13]). In this difficult exercise, in my view, sentencers should consider the accused’s behaviour in the context of the purpose and the effects of registration, keep a sense of proportion and use their commonsense.

Convention-related issues

[53] In my opinion the legislation does not offend against the Convention. Its provisions are within the scope of Parliament’s margin of appreciation. The legislation is undoubtedly motivated by a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the public. In my opinion the means are reasonably related to that aim.

[54] The registration periods are provided in a simple scheme in which the various periods come into effect in a series of precipices. The scheme has the effect that, for example, an offender who is sentenced to six months imprisonment will be registered for seven years whereas an offender who is sentenced to seven months imprisonment will be registered for ten years. It also has the strange consequence that if the accused is put on probation, the registration period is the period of probation; whereas if he is admonished, the registration period is five years.

[55] There will inevitably be hard cases. However, I consider that that is not in itself a reason for us to hold that the legislation is not Convention compliant (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) [2004] 1 AC 816, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead at para [74]; Gallagher, Re an Application by for Judicial Review [2003] NIQB 26, Kerr J at para [23]; Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 1 WLR 3075, at paras [16]-[17]). The legislation is a proportionate response to a serious social problem.

[56] I am further of the view that the ratio of R (F) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (supra) does not extend to the imposition of fixed periods of registration. In that case the Supreme Court held that for those who were made subject to life-long notification requirements, a right of review could be subject to a “high threshold” regarding inter alia the date at which review could first be sought (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers PSC at paras [39], [57]). It is consistent with that approach that where there is a definite period of registration that automatically comes to an end, a right of review is unnecessary.

[57] On the view that I have taken on the Convention questions, the questions of vires relating to the 2004 Order and to the conduct of the Lord Advocate in the context of section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 do not arise.

Cumulo sentences
[58] Where the accused has been convicted of two or more charges, not all of which bring Schedule 3 into play, the sentencer ought not to pass a cumulo sentence. The part of a sentence attributable to a bail aggravation should be left out of account in this part of the exercise.

[59] In this case, the first sift judge who considered the summary appeal noted that the imposition of a cumulo sentence of nine months, including three months for a bail aggravation, raised a real question as what the appropriate notification period should be. However, since a ten years notification period was triggered in any event by the sentence on the indicted charges, the issue is academic in this case.

Decision in these appeals and disposal

[60] In both of these cases, in my opinion, the sheriff was amply justified in concluding that the behaviour of the accused exemplified a significant sexual aspect. I propose to your Lordships that we should refuse both appeals.

March 2009

Lorry driver jailed for sexually abusing girls

A pervert who sexually abused two girls in offences dating back 30 years has been jailed for three years nine months.

Alan Law groomed one of his victims and the abuse was to affect her whole emotional life, Maidstone Crown Court heard.

The 55-year-old lorry driver, of Torrington Road, Ashford, admitted 10 charges of indecent assault.

Eloise Marshall, prosecuting, said the offences dated back to 1979 when Law was in his 20s.

Law showed both girls sexual positions in magazines and persuaded them to act them out on the floor. He also molested them.

Judge Charles Macdonald QC told Law: “These were persistent offences, taking place over a number of years.”

There were “distasteful activities” such as Law watching one of the girls dancing semi-naked.

A 15-page statement by one of the victims, he said, showed it was no exaggeration to state Law had caused significant disruption to her entire emotional state.

The other girl had also suffered mentally.

Judge Macdonald said Law’s levels of victim awareness remained low.

He was placed on the sex offenders’ register indefinitely.

January 2015

Top flying instructor faces jail after child abuse images found following Exeter Airport office raid

One of Britain’s leading flying instructors is facing jail after he admitted downloading thousands of abuse images of boys in the Philippines.

Richard Bristowe, from Exeter, was tracked down by police after he made international money transfers to a criminal in Manila who runs a live streaming service on the internet.

Bristowe, aged 70, is the director of Aviation South West, which runs a flying school at Exeter. He has also run lessons from Plymouth Airport and is on the Civil Aviation Authority’s heads of training group.

He has continued to sit alongside councillors and airline representatives on the Exeter Airport Consultative Group during the two years since his home was raided by police.

Bristowe has trained thousands of pilots and succeeded in keeping his secret life hidden until British police were tipped off about his Western Union payments to Manila.

Officers raided his Exeter home and his office at Exeter Airport in December 2012 and found 3,600 images or movies on his computers.

These included 41 in the worst category, which shows sadism or bestiality, and 275 showing adults raping children, of which 49 were movies.

He was also found with a memory stick in his pocket which contained the encryption key to many of the files which he had downloaded from the Philippines.

Bristowe, of Birchy Barton Hill, Exeter, who also had a business address at Christow, near Newton Abbot, admitted 12 counts of possessing indecent images of children when he appeared at Exeter Crown Court.

Judge Phillip Wassall adjourned his sentence until next month and ordered the probation service to prepare a pre sentence report.

He told him:”I cannot say how I am going to sentence you. This case plainly passes the custody threshold and it will depend on what I hear and read about you.”

The Judge also thanked the officers from the Devon and Cornwall high tech crime unit for their persistence in pursuing the case, which Bristowe disputed until the morning of his trial.

He told them:”I would like to thank the officers for their care in this case. At times it must have seemed like trying to persuade a flat earther that the world is round.”

He ordered Bristowe to sign on the sex offenders’ register before he left the court building.

Miss Mary McCarthy, prosecuting, said:”This investigation started when information was provided to the police that Bristowe had made Western Union payments to a man in the Philippines who was known to be involved in the advertising and selling of child abuse images and live streaming of child pornography.

“Two payments were made in 2011 but it was not until December 2012 that a warrant was executed at his home when he was the only person present. A number of computers were seized.

“They were found to contain indecent images and the defendant was found with a memory stick on which police found traces of images. He made no comment.

“A further warrant was executed at his workplace at Exeter Airport where a desktop computer was seized from Aviation South West and also found to contain indecent images.

“A further search was made at his home and three more computers seized and in interview he said he did not know the passwords to the raw files but the memory stick was found to contain the passwords to encrypted files.”

Miss McCarthy said police were able to establish the dates and times when items were downloaded and viewed and to show they had been created when Bristowe’s 24-year-old Filipino boyfriend was not in the country.

The defendant has no police record but had previously been investigated in 2009 when a man who bought his old home found a large number of photos in the attic.

Miss Emily Pitts, defending, said Bristowe did not try to thwart the police investigation by withholding passwords and had not been involved in live streaming.

January 2015

Bromsgrove fitness instructor found guilty of having indecent images of children

A BROMSGROVE fitness instructor who ran sessions at the Dolphin Centre has been found guilty of having indecent images of children on his computer.

Alexander Milicev, of Parkwood Road, was convicted following a trial over three charges, relating to the 221 photographs.

The 29-year-old was also found guilty of possessing five indecent videos of children, along with four extreme pornographic photos and three further films involving animals.

The charges related to offences which took place between April 22, 2012 and August 13, 2013.

Milicev, also known as Sander, pleaded not guilty and, defending him, Mr Pendle said he did not accept the charges but respected the court’s decision.

He then requested the magistrates bare in mind his cooperation throughout the case.

Milicev was handed a 36-month community order with a 36-month supervisionary requirement and he was told to undertake a sex offender group programme.

Magistrates also placed a five-year Sexual Offenders Order on him and told Milicev to sign the Sex Offenders Register for five years.

He was told he could not have any unsupervised contact with females under 16 except in the presence of the child’s parent or guardian or another appropriate adult.

Milicev was also banned from using any device capable of accessing the internet unless it could retain and display the history and he could make it available on request for inspection by police.

He was also ordered not to have any software or hardware wiping utilities installed on any computer he had access or control over.

Milicev was told to pay £620 in costs and a victim surcharge of £60.

Following the verdict, The Standard alerted Wychavon Leisure Trust, which runs the Dophin Centre, to the convictions.

A spokeswoman for the organisation said: “Mr Milicev is a freelance personal trainer who is not employed by Wychavon Leisure who occasionally used the facilities.

“In light of his conviction which we were previously unaware of, Mr Milicev will no longer be allowed to access the Dolphin Centre.”

January 2015

Pervert’s prize shield will be sent back to him after music festival organisers find out about ex teacher’s sex offences

A music festival trophy donated by a pervert pensioner will be sent back to him by event organisers with a note saying: “We don’t want it.”

John Douglas, general secretary of Dumfries and District Music Festival Association, plans to return the shield to 69-year-old Timothy Geaney after it was revealed that he was caught with 24,000 indecent images of children.

The shield, which carries Geaney’s name, has been on offer for the last 10 years for the region’s best recorder player aged under 18.

Mr Douglas said: “We were informed about Mr Geaney after a story appeared in the paper recently.Our next committee meeting is later
this month but we certainly plan on returning the shield that he had donated.”

Former music teacher Geaney, from Dalswinton, was placed on the sex offenders’ register after his computers were found to contain indecent images of children that he had downloaded over a 10-year period.

They were uncovered by a specialist cyber investigation unit after equipment was seized from his home by police.

Geaney admitted that between April 2004 and February this year he took or permitted to be taken or made indecent photographs of children. He is due to be sentenced at Dumfries Sheriff Court on February 17.

A former teacher at the Crawfordton House private school, Geaney left his job “suddenly and under a cloud” in 1988, according to one parent who spoke to the Standard this week.

The parent added: “The details of this were never made public and there was no police involvement”.

Geaney was later employed as a supply teacher by Dumfries and Galloway Council. A council spokeswoman said yesterday that no concerns had ever been raised about Geaney by anyone before he started working with the local authority.

Crawfordton closed in 2006.

January 2015

Mum attacked her 15-month-old baby – leaving the child with a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain

A mother assaulted her baby and left the infant with a fractured skull, fractured ribs, a broken arm and bleeding on the brain, a court heard.

Melissa Taylor, 26, avoided a prison term after admitting four charges of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Judge Neil Bidder QC spared the defendant from jail “in the best interest of her children” after deciding the 15-month-old victim, her twin sister and another eight-year-old sibling “still do need their mother”.

Prosecutor Gareth James told Cardiff Crown Court the injuries were discovered on December 17 after the child’s father noticed his daughter “lying listlessly” with her body and eyes shaking.

She was diagnosed as “fitting” with swelling of the head at Royal Glamorgan Hospital and transferred to the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff.

Mr James said subsequent CT scans revealed the little girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had suffered subdural haemorrhage (bleeding on the brain), a fracture to the skull, fracture to the arm and fractured ribs.

Doctors later assessed the girl’s head injuries as being around a week old, her rib injuries around five weeks old and estimated that her arm had been fractured for three or four weeks.

The court heard how the fractured skull had probably been caused by a blunt force to the side of the head, the ribs by squeezing around the chest, while the arm injury was synonymous with a “grab or a yank”.

Under police interview Taylor said she had “roughly handled” her daughter on two occasions.

Judge Bidder said the girl was now making good progress and “hitting her development milestones” despite the fact that at one point doctors had feared that her eyesight was in danger.

The court heard how the defendant’s partner was left in “shock and horror” after learning of the abuse.

Gareth James said the distraught father worked unsociable hours to provide for his family which left the defendant “struggling to cope” with the twins, who were born seven weeks prematurely, and being diagnosed with postnatal depression.

He said the father had noticed Taylor, of Tyn Bryn Road, Tonyrefail, seemed to pay more attention to one of her twin children than the other but had not suspected the abuse, despite the fact that Taylor had shown her partner a video of the baby looking unwell and shaking as she was worried about the child’s health.

In mitigation Ieuan Rees described the video as a “subtle cry for help.”

Mr Rees said his client had shown “frustration” and an “inability to cope,” even though she had lovingly raised another child for eight years without any issue.

“In every other way she has been a responsible, caring mother,” Mr Rees said.

He added: “She acknowledges in retrospect that she should have sought more support while admitting her shortcomings.”

Judge Bidder said the defendant was in a state of depression and “tragically” could not cope and did not seek help.

He said the child must have been caused “terrible, terrible pain” while “terrible distress” had also been put on the child’s father who was initially arrested and kept apart from his children as part of the police investigation.

Judge Bidder added that he considered the defendant’s actions a “reckless assault”

Taylor was handed a 20-month sentence for each of the four charges admitted, suspended for two years.

She must also adhere to the requirements of a 12-month supervision order and complete 11 sessions of a Women’s Specified Activity course.

The defendant was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £100.

January 2015

Whitby man jailed for five years for child sex crimes

A Whitby man has been jailed for five years after making thousands of indecent images of children and inciting a young boy to rape his sister.

Former military man Simon Abbott (27) exchanged indecent images with the teenage boy over the internet and urged the youngster to sexually abuse his younger sibling.

During a six-year period between 2007 and 2013, Abbott, of Elgin Street, Whitby, downloaded 30,175 indecent images and videos of children, many of them extreme in nature and some of which he sent to the named boy, who lived in Wiltshire.

Abbott was arrested in February 2013 and charged a year later with 24 counts of making and distributing indecent images. In police interview, the ex-army trainee told officers: “I’ve screwed everything up.”

He appeared for sentence at York Crown Court on Wednesday after admitting the 24 original charges as well as four sexual-incitement charges dating back to the summer of 2012.

Abbott admitted encouraging the boy to rape his sister in June 2012 and inciting him to make indecent pictures of children between July and August of the same year. He was arrested after Wiltshire Police traced the exchange of pornographic images.

Prosecutor, Mark Styles, said Abbott had been using a web address under a fictional name, from which dozens of extreme child-indecent images were sent to the youngster in Wiltshire.

Police in North Yorkshire searched Abbott’s home and seized computer equipment which contained a staggering amount of vile images featuring young boys and girls.

Abbott was arrested at his army barracks in Catterick and immediately owned up to sending and receiving horrific images of children to and from other internet users via a website based in Russia.

Mr Styles said that between June and July 2012, Abbott exchanged a number of sick online messages with the boy in Wiltshire, who was given a referral order by the youth court for his own part in the twisted sex-fantasy game.

Abbott encouraged him to take indecent photos of his sister and said he would pay him for it. There was also a conversation about them meeting up at their respective homes and the boy charging money for sexual favours, although neither this nor any sex crimes against the boy’s sister were ever carried out.

Defence barrister Taryn Turner said his army career was over and Abbott had “no intention whatsoever” of turning his sick fantasy world of child sex into reality.

However, Recorder Benjamin Nolan QC said Abbott had “gorged himself” on indecent photos of children for many years.

He added there was a real risk that the impressionable young boy could have enacted the defendant’s twisted exhortations to rape his sister.

He sentenced Abbott to five years in prison and imposed an indefinite sexual offences prevention order. Abbott was also placed on the sex-offenders’ register indefinitely.