ANDREW TINSLEY FROM HILLSBOROUGH IN COURT OVER REPEATED SEX ORDER BREACHES IN BELFAST AND CRAIGAVON

In August 2023, a man named Andrew Tinsley, who resides on Ballynahinch Road in Hillsborough, appeared once again before the courts to face serious allegations related to his ongoing breaches of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO).

It has been reported that Tinsley, a 48-year-old former car salesman, has committed over 100 violations of his SOPO within a span of just four months. The breaches primarily involved visiting numerous libraries and using computers without obtaining prior approval from his designated risk manager, actions that are strictly prohibited under the terms of his order.

Specifically, between November 2022 and February 28, 2023, Tinsley is alleged to have visited a total of 134 libraries across different months—seven in November, a staggering 41 in December, 57 in January, and 29 in February. These visits were carried out despite the restrictions placed on him, which are designed to monitor and limit his access to certain environments due to his status as a registered sex offender.

During a hearing at Belfast Magistrates Court, a prosecution lawyer informed Deputy District Judge Chris Holmes that although the case was set to proceed to an indictment at the Crown Court, the formal paperwork had yet to be filed. Tinsley was granted bail and the case was adjourned until August 30 for further proceedings.

It is important to note that Tinsley is a convicted sex offender with prior convictions for voyeurism and possessing indecent images of children. These convictions underpin the strict restrictions imposed by his SOPO, which include limitations on his place of residence, employment, movement, and internet access. The court must be convinced that such restrictions are necessary and proportionate to prevent further offending.

Earlier in January 2023, Tinsley was found to have breached his SOPO once again. He was caught with an iPhone XR mobile device and a SIM card without notifying his designated risk manager, violating the conditions of his order. This breach occurred between August 12 and 15 of the previous year. The prosecution highlighted that Tinsley’s status as a registered sex offender, with ongoing restrictions until June 2026, makes such violations particularly serious.

Furthermore, the court was told that Tinsley was prohibited from owning, accessing, or using camera-enabled devices without approval. His possession of the unapproved iPhone XR and a duplicate SIM card was a clear violation of these rules. His history includes a disturbing pattern of covertly recording men and boys in public toilets, which initially led to his classification as a danger to the public.

Initially, Tinsley was ordered to serve a 30-month probation period after admitting to 18 sex offences, including ten counts of possessing indecent images of children, seven counts of recording individuals in private acts for sexual gratification, and one count of voyeurism. These offences spanned from July 1, 2018, to January 26, 2019. However, due to ongoing conflicts with probation and social services—who both agreed he should not live with his children—the probation order was revoked and replaced with a suspended jail sentence.

During a court hearing in January, Tinsley’s defense argued that he was entitled to have a phone and that the recent offences stemmed from his attempt to change phones and SIM cards, intending to give his old device to his daughter. The defense also acknowledged that Tinsley’s battles with the Probation Board and PBNI had resulted in the revocation of his original order, leaving him without the opportunity to address his underlying issues.

It was also revealed that Tinsley’s car dealership business had closed, and he is now reliant on benefits and family support to seek therapy. His solicitor emphasized that Tinsley is making efforts to cope with his issues, particularly his voyeurism tendencies, but warned that he is close to losing control and risking further legal consequences.

Judge Bernie Kelly issued a stern warning, stating that if Tinsley reoffended or breached his SOPO again, his starting point for sentencing would be a four-month jail term. The judge also expressed concern over Tinsley’s ongoing conflicts with authorities, including probation, social services, and the courts, and suggested that it might be better for his family if he was not living at home.

In a related case, Tinsley faced additional charges for using a mobile phone with a camera on April 21 of the previous year. His solicitor admitted that he possessed the device but claimed there was a reason or excuse for its use. The case was adjourned until January 18, with the judge warning Tinsley that there was no reasonable justification for such breaches.

Overall, the court’s proceedings highlight the ongoing struggle to manage Tinsley’s compliance with legal restrictions, his history of offending, and the serious concerns about his potential to reoffend if not closely monitored and appropriately restrained.