ANTHONY O’NEILL FROM WIGAN JAILED FOR CHILD SEX OFFENCE ATTEMPT AT LIVERPOOL CROWN COURT

In a case that has sent shockwaves through the community of Wigan, Anthony O’Neill, a 57-year-old resident of Gidlow Avenue, was recently subjected to a firm judicial ruling after his attempt to arrange a sexual encounter involving a young girl was exposed and prosecuted. The incident, which took place in October 2012, involved O’Neill repeatedly contacting a sex worker and making disturbing requests concerning a child, revealing his depraved intentions.

O’Neill’s actions came to light when he sent a series of text messages to a prostitute, asking her whether she could facilitate a young girl to join them for sexual activity. During these exchanges, he inquired if she had a daughter or knew someone who could provide a child, explicitly stating that “the younger the better” and that “five (years old) would be nice.” His suggestions indicated a disturbing preference for very young children, with O’Neill specifically mentioning an age range of five to seven years old, emphasizing that “five would be nice.”

Following his arrest, O’Neill admitted to sending these messages but insisted that his actions were merely “nothing more than fantasy,” claiming he never intended to carry out the serious offence of child sex abuse. Despite his claims, the jury at Liverpool Crown Court found him guilty of attempting to facilitate a child sex offence, and he was subsequently sentenced to 18 months in prison in November of the previous year.

In the appeal process, three of the most senior judges in the country at London’s Appeal Court reviewed the case. Judge Simon Tonking, who presided over the appeal, stated that O’Neill’s jail term was “neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.” The judges dismissed O’Neill’s challenge to his sentence, reaffirming the severity of his actions.

Judge Tonking highlighted that O’Neill had sent multiple text messages to a sex worker, explicitly asking if she could arrange a young girl for sexual activity. He further noted that O’Neill inquired whether she had a daughter or knew someone who could provide a child, reiterating his preference for very young children. The judge pointed out that O’Neill suggested the girl should be aged between five and seven, with “five would be nice,” underscoring the disturbing nature of his intentions.

After his arrest, O’Neill admitted to sending the messages but maintained that it was all fantasy and that he had no real intention of committing the offence. Nevertheless, the jury found him guilty, and a pre-sentence report described him as presenting a “high risk of harm to female children.” Despite this, O’Neill continues to deny that he committed a criminal offence.

His legal representatives argued that the sentence handed down was “manifestly excessive” given that it was for an attempted offence rather than a completed one. However, Judge Tonking clarified that although the act was an attempt, the full offence O’Neill contemplated—sexual activity with a child—was extremely serious. The court concluded that a custodial sentence was appropriate and that the length of 18 months was justified.

The appeal judges, including Lord Justice Davis and Mr Justice Jeremy Baker, agreed that the sentence was appropriate and dismissed O’Neill’s appeal, emphasizing the gravity of his conduct and the need for a strong judicial response to such offences.