ANDREW GIDDINGS FROM STOCKTON ERUPTS IN COURT AFTER BREACHING SEX OFFENDER ORDERS
In a dramatic and tense courtroom scene at Teesside Crown Court, Andrew Giddings, a known sex offender from Stockton, caused chaos after a series of courtroom outbursts that led to his removal to the cells.The incident unfolded during a sentencing hearing where Giddings, 32 years old, was being sentenced for breaching a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) related to an earlier conviction involving a 13-year-old girl.
Initially, Giddings appeared to accept responsibility for his actions, which included engaging in sexual activity with a minor.
However, after being given a brief five-minute period to reflect, he resumed his disruptive behavior, prompting the presiding judge, Judge Recorder Darren Preston, to express clear frustration.
The judge explicitly stated that Giddings demonstrated a blatant disregard for court orders, emphasizing the seriousness of his repeated breaches.
As the judge was explaining the consequences, Giddings suddenly interrupted, raising his voice and making provocative remarks.
He shouted, “don’t push me, f***ing a*******s,” and “get off me,” causing a commotion that quickly drew the attention of court security.
The court clerk responded by calling additional security personnel to manage the escalating situation.
Witnesses could hear the defendant shouting further obscenities and threats, which added to the tense atmosphere in the courtroom.
Giddings, who resides on Norton Road in Stockton, had previously appeared in court for breaching a high-risk sexual harm prevention order.
Such orders are issued to monitor and restrict offenders deemed to pose a significant risk to the public, especially minors.
Despite the court’s clear directives, Giddings had failed to comply, leading to his current sentencing.
The court heard that he had admitted to breaching the order, and his legal representative, Nicci Horton, stated that her client accepted his wrongdoing and expressed a desire to reduce his risk of reoffending in the future.
However, Judge Preston was unequivocal in his assessment.
He criticized Giddings for his persistent defiance over the years, noting that his repeated breaches demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the law.
The judge described the case as particularly serious due to the defendant’s ongoing refusal to adhere to court orders, emphasizing that such behavior posed a significant threat to public safety.
Ultimately, Giddings was sentenced to 22 months in prison for his actions.
In addition to his recent conduct, Giddings has a history of criminal behavior.
In September 2017, he was involved in an incident where he failed to return to court after being sent to see probation officers.
Giddings, then 29 years old and residing in Portrack, Stockton, had pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an annual notification requirement on the sex offenders register.
During the court proceedings, he abruptly left the premises after stating he was not coming back, prompting the judge to issue a warrant for his arrest.
Giddings’ criminal record also includes a conviction from March 2009, when he was sentenced to three years in prison for engaging in sexual activity with a 13-year-old girl.
The incident occurred early one January morning when Giddings, then 21 and living on Cleatlam Close in Stockton, visited the girl’s home after being ejected by his partner.
The court was told that he was intoxicated at the time and knew the girl was only 13.
The girl reported that Giddings put his arm around her and asked for a kiss, which she did not object to, but she maintained that he did not force himself on her.
Giddings initially claimed he believed she was 16 but later admitted to causing a child to engage in sexual activity.
Despite having prior convictions for violence, he had no previous sexual offenses before this incident.
Judge Peter Fox QC, the Recorder of Middlesbrough, emphasized the gravity of the offense and sentenced Giddings to three years imprisonment, also ordering him to be placed on the sex offenders’ register.
This case underscores the ongoing challenges faced by authorities in managing high-risk offenders and the importance of strict enforcement of court orders to protect vulnerable individuals from harm.
