BRADLEY COULSON SENT BACK TO PRISON FOR BREACHING SEXUAL HARM PREVENTION ORDER IN WELLINGBOROUGH

In May 2022, a significant legal development occurred involving Bradley Coulson, a man previously residing in Wellingborough, who was re-incarcerated for a period of 18 months due to a breach of his court-mandated restrictions. Coulson, aged 21 at the time, was found engaging in inappropriate conversations with young girls at a local shopping centre, an act that directly violated the conditions set forth in his Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO).

His case was initially brought before Northampton Magistrates’ Court on July 7, 2020, following a civil application initiated by Northamptonshire Police. The police had expressed concerns about Coulson’s conduct, which prompted the court to impose the SHPO to mitigate any risk of further harm. This order included a series of strict conditions designed to restrict Coulson’s interactions, most notably prohibiting him from having any contact with individuals under the age of 16.

Despite these restrictions, Coulson was observed on the afternoon of November 7, 2021, engaging in conversation with a group of young girls estimated to be between 11 and 13 years old. The incident took place at the Swansgate Shopping Centre in Wellingborough, a popular retail hub in the town. Witnesses reported seeing Coulson speaking with the minors, which raised immediate concerns about his compliance with the court’s orders.

Following this breach, Coulson was promptly arrested by local authorities. He subsequently admitted to the charges, pleading guilty to three counts of violating the terms of his SHPO. The case was brought before Northampton Crown Court, where Coulson faced sentencing for his actions. On April 29, the court handed down a sentence of one year and six months in prison, reflecting the seriousness of his breach and the potential risk posed to the community.

His re-imprisonment underscores the ongoing efforts by law enforcement and judicial authorities to monitor and enforce restrictions on individuals deemed a threat to minors. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to court orders designed to protect vulnerable populations, and the consequences faced by those who violate such legal safeguards.