ALLAN SMITH AND SHOCKING BREACHES IN CUMBRIA
Update 19/05/2026: A Carlisle resident and known child sex offender, Allan Smith, aged 38, who had been on the Sex Offender Register since 2017 for grooming a 15-year-old girl and sexual abuse, blamed his criminal behavior on ‘isolation’ caused by his criminal past.Smith appeared at Carlisle Crown Court facing six new charges: three for breaching his sexual harm prevention order, which monitors his online activities, and three for violating the conditions of his sex offender registration.
The prosecution, led by Adam Quine, outlined Smith’s violations, starting with two instances of hiding mobile phones and a failure to disclose five social media accounts to police.
Additionally, Smith failed to provide police with usernames, bank card details, and information about his whereabouts during a period when a child was at his residence.
The court recalled Smith’s 2017 offence, where he contacted a 15-year-old girl via Facebook, sending her numerous messages and requesting photos, including those in underwear or without.
He subsequently asked for sex.
In 2024, he was prosecuted again for exposing himself publicly in a neighbour’s yard.
During the police interview about his latest offences, Smith claimed he did not use the internet and had no social media accounts—statements that were proven false.
His defense solicitor, Marion Weir, explained that Smith was struggling to explain his actions but was suffering from significant social adversity since his first conviction, including vandalism to his home and social rejection because of his sex offender status.
Weir added that Smith had lost family members, which contributed to his sense of loneliness and emotional vulnerability.
She indicated that he intended to move to a different part of Cumbria to escape the stigma.
She stressed that there were no other offenses underlying his breaches.
Judge Michael Fanning told the court that Smith’s initial offence involved grooming and a serious sexual assault of a minor girl.
He also noted a recent offence where Smith caused alarm by sending a sexual image.
The judge sentenced him to two years in prison, with an additional eight weeks to activate a previous suspended sentence.
The court also noted that a child present at Smith’s residence in Penrith was a boy and not considered to be at risk.
Smith, previously residing at Stonegarth, Carlisle, remains under supervision.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… A man named Allan Smith, who previously received a court order to control his internet usage due to his status as a sex offender, has found himself back in legal trouble for secretly possessing two mobile phones in violation of that order.
Smith, aged 34 and residing in Stonegarth, Morton, was the focus of a court hearing at Carlisle Crown Court where disturbing details emerged about his actions and the court's efforts to prevent further offences.
According to court records, police officers responded to Smith’s residence on June 3 of the previous year as part of their routine monitoring of offenders under strict supervision.
During the visit, officers discovered two mobile phones hidden at his home.
The defendant initially claimed that these devices belonged to his brother, a statement he made when asked to provide the security codes for the phones.
However, the accused’s brother categorically denied ownership of the devices, indicating that they did not belong to him.
The phones were protected with numerical locks, and Smith refused to share their access codes with police, raising suspicions about his intentions.
Further investigation uncovered that both phones had been used to access Facebook, a prohibited activity under Smith’s court-imposed restrictions.
The sexual harm prevention order, issued in July 2017, was a response to his prior conviction for inciting a 15-year-old girl to engage in sexual activities.
This order was specifically designed to restrict and monitor his internet interactions in an effort to prevent further offending behavior.
The court was also told that a detailed forensic and psychological assessment had been conducted.
A probation service report depicted Smith as deceitful and manipulative, characteristics that posed concern regarding his compliance with legal restrictions.
Nevertheless, a comprehensive 37-page psychological report concluded that incarcerating Smith might cause him significant harm and that he showed potential for rehabilitation.
During the hearing, Kim Whittlestone, representing Smith, explained that the offender had managed to establish stable accommodation after previous periods of instability.
Following his release from custody, Smith had lived in a bail hostel and later in bed and breakfast accommodations.
He now resides in a more permanent setting since losing his grandfather, with whom he had previously lived.
Smith, who was formerly employed at a poultry factory in Penrith, dedicates much of his time to caring for animals he keeps on an allotment, which includes 25 pigeons and ducklings.
It was emphasized that he is vulnerable, living somewhat in isolation and diagnosed with ADHD.
The presiding judge, Recorder Andrew Nuttall, acknowledged that there was no evidence to suggest that Smith’s phones were used for any illegal or dangerous purposes, such as seeking out young girls or engaging in criminal activity.
The judge highlighted that punishing Smith with imprisonment would likely cause undue hardship to the animals he cares for, which serve as a significant part of his life and well-being.
Recognizing the minor nature of any risk posed by Smith and his potential for positive change, the judge opted for a community-based sentence.
In conclusion, Recorder Nuttall decided that a community order would be appropriate, emphasizing that society’s interests could be served through rehabilitation rather than incarceration.
As part of this order, Smith was sentenced to 200 hours of unpaid community work over a 12-month period, along with a requirement to participate in 30 days of rehabilitative activities aimed at reducing any further risk to the community.
The court’s decision reflected a balance between protecting public safety and offering a chance for Smith to rebuild his life under supervision.
