ANTHONY PENNINGTON FROM CHADDERTON CAUGHT IN DISTURBING ONLINE PREDATION NEAR MANCHESTER
| Red Rose Database
Chadderton Child Sexual Abuser
In a disturbing case that has sent shockwaves through the community of Chadderton and the wider Manchester area, Anthony Pennington, a 30-year-old man, was involved in a serious online grooming and exploitation incident involving a 13-year-old boy. The incident came to light after Pennington, who had established a seemingly innocent friendship with the young teenager through a social networking platform, manipulated the boy into sending indecent photographs of himself.
According to court proceedings held at Manchester's Minshull Street Crown Court, Pennington exploited their shared support for Oldham Athletic FC as a means to build trust and closeness with the young victim. The court was informed that Pennington used this common interest as a gateway to further his inappropriate intentions.
Pennington admitted to the charge of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. However, due to procedural delays in the legal process, he was not immediately prosecuted for this most serious offence. Instead, he was initially sentenced in March of the previous year to a total of 15 months in prison for separate crimes, including possession and distribution of indecent images of a child, as well as breaching a sexual offences prevention order.
The police had seized Pennington’s computer at the time of his arrest, which contained six images of the 13-year-old victim. Despite this, he was not charged with incitement until after his initial sentencing, highlighting a significant delay in the legal process. The court heard that the images of the young boy were stored on his device, but the charge of incitement was only brought forward later.
During the hearing, Kirsten Beswick, representing Pennington, expressed her client's feelings of being 'doubly punished,' noting that the delays in bringing the incitement charge to court had been unusual and unfortunate. She explained that it was only in June of the current year that the matter reached the magistrates' courts, which she described as an inexplicable delay.
Judge Timothy Mort addressed Pennington directly during sentencing, remarking, "You came before the court before this came to light. The time-scale went wrong; it was hopelessly out of sync." The judge acknowledged that if the incitement offence had been dealt with concurrently with the initial case, Pennington might have faced a longer custodial sentence. However, he also emphasized that it would be unjust to send him back to prison at this stage.
Ultimately, Pennington was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for 18 months, meaning he will not serve time unless he breaches the conditions of his supervision. Additionally, he will be under 12 months of probation supervision, during which his participation in a treatment program, which the court noted was showing positive results, will be closely monitored.
Prosecutor Juliet Berry outlined that Pennington had initiated contact with the young boy through an online chat site, and it was clear from the conversations that the victim was a minor. After his arrest, Pennington admitted to deriving sexual gratification from viewing the photographs sent by the boy, further underscoring the seriousness of his actions and the breach of trust involved in this case.
According to court proceedings held at Manchester's Minshull Street Crown Court, Pennington exploited their shared support for Oldham Athletic FC as a means to build trust and closeness with the young victim. The court was informed that Pennington used this common interest as a gateway to further his inappropriate intentions.
Pennington admitted to the charge of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. However, due to procedural delays in the legal process, he was not immediately prosecuted for this most serious offence. Instead, he was initially sentenced in March of the previous year to a total of 15 months in prison for separate crimes, including possession and distribution of indecent images of a child, as well as breaching a sexual offences prevention order.
The police had seized Pennington’s computer at the time of his arrest, which contained six images of the 13-year-old victim. Despite this, he was not charged with incitement until after his initial sentencing, highlighting a significant delay in the legal process. The court heard that the images of the young boy were stored on his device, but the charge of incitement was only brought forward later.
During the hearing, Kirsten Beswick, representing Pennington, expressed her client's feelings of being 'doubly punished,' noting that the delays in bringing the incitement charge to court had been unusual and unfortunate. She explained that it was only in June of the current year that the matter reached the magistrates' courts, which she described as an inexplicable delay.
Judge Timothy Mort addressed Pennington directly during sentencing, remarking, "You came before the court before this came to light. The time-scale went wrong; it was hopelessly out of sync." The judge acknowledged that if the incitement offence had been dealt with concurrently with the initial case, Pennington might have faced a longer custodial sentence. However, he also emphasized that it would be unjust to send him back to prison at this stage.
Ultimately, Pennington was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for 18 months, meaning he will not serve time unless he breaches the conditions of his supervision. Additionally, he will be under 12 months of probation supervision, during which his participation in a treatment program, which the court noted was showing positive results, will be closely monitored.
Prosecutor Juliet Berry outlined that Pennington had initiated contact with the young boy through an online chat site, and it was clear from the conversations that the victim was a minor. After his arrest, Pennington admitted to deriving sexual gratification from viewing the photographs sent by the boy, further underscoring the seriousness of his actions and the breach of trust involved in this case.