BRADFORD PAEDOPHILE ANTHONY BATTLES FAILS COURT APPEAL TO CONTACT TEENAGERS

In a significant legal development in Bradford, Anthony Battles, a 64-year-old man with a long history of sexual offenses, has seen his attempt to modify his existing court restrictions rejected by the judiciary. The court maintained a strict stance against Battles, who has been labeled by a judge as a lifelong sexual predator, emphasizing the importance of protecting vulnerable youth from potential harm.

Anthony Charles Battles, who has a criminal record dating back over four decades for various indecency-related offenses involving minors, had previously been subject to a Sex Offenders Order issued in 2001. This order explicitly prohibited him from engaging in any form of communication with individuals under the age of 18 unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. Despite this, Battles sought to have the order amended to allow contact with teenagers as young as 16, arguing that he posed no threat to those over the age of 16 and that his social interactions were harmless.

The court proceedings revealed that Battles had violated the terms of his Sex Offenders Order on four separate occasions within a single week in November of the previous year. During this period, he was found to have made contact with a 16-year-old girl and a 17-year-old boy who had learning difficulties. Evidence presented indicated that Battles had befriended the boy and invited both teenagers to his flat, where he supplied them with alcohol. Prosecutor Ewan McLachlan detailed that on one such occasion, the girl was so intoxicated upon returning home that police were called to prevent a breach of the peace, and she was subsequently arrested. It was also alleged during earlier hearings that Battles had stroked the girl’s leg, further underscoring concerns about his behavior.

In his appeal, Battles' legal representative, Simon Myers, argued that his client was an elderly man who was lonely and sought social interaction. Myers contended that there was no evidence to suggest Battles had been grooming the teenagers, nor was there any indication that he was a danger to individuals over the age of consent. He emphasized that Battles had no interest in engaging in sexual activities with anyone over 16 and that his actions did not warrant a reduction in the protective restrictions.

However, Judge Roger Scott, presiding over the case alongside two magistrates, firmly rejected these arguments. He stated that it would be both unrealistic and inappropriate to lower the age threshold for the protection order. The judge highlighted Battles’ extensive criminal history, which includes convictions for indecent assault dating back to 1968, and noted that his record clearly demonstrated a pattern of predatory behavior. Judge Scott emphasized the importance of safeguarding all minors, especially those under 16, and protecting young adults up to the age of 18 from individuals with a documented history of sexual offenses.

The court detailed Battles’ previous convictions, which include a five-year prison sentence in 1993 for indecent assault on a ten-year-old boy and charges related to taking a child without lawful authority. Additionally, he received an extended sentence in 1991 for indecently assaulting a 12-year-old boy he had befriended. His earlier convictions also include a three-year sentence in 1988 for indecent assault on a female under 14, and a seven-year term in 1973 for serious sexual offenses involving males under 14. His earliest known convictions date back to 1968, when he was convicted of indecent assault on boys under 14.

Currently homeless and formerly residing on Mint Street in Undercliffe, Bradford, Battles’ criminal history underscores the court’s decision to uphold the restrictions designed to prevent him from having contact with minors. The court’s ruling reflects a firm stance on the importance of protecting children and young adults from individuals with a documented history of predatory sexual behavior, reaffirming the need for strict supervision and legal safeguards in cases like this.