CALLUM CHANT BURY SEX OFFENDER CAUGHT IN CINEMA SCANDAL AND CHILD ABDUCTION
| Red Rose Database
Bury Child Sexual Abuser
In November 2018, a disturbing case unfolded involving Callum Chant, a 19-year-old resident of Bury, who was found guilty of engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with an underage girl and involved in a child abduction incident. The court proceedings revealed a series of troubling events that highlighted Chant’s misconduct and the subsequent legal actions taken against him.
It was established that Chant was caught on CCTV engaging in inappropriate touching of a girl under the age of 16 while they were both watching a film at a cinema in Bury. The footage showed Chant, who was 18 at the time, sitting in close proximity to the young girl, with their heads moving near each other, indicating a level of intimacy that was inappropriate given her age. The court was told that Chant’s actions included touching her bottom over her clothes and on her leg, although both girls involved refused to cooperate with police investigations or provide statements.
The incident at the cinema was not an isolated event. Approximately three months later, authorities discovered another underage girl at Chant’s flat. This girl’s family had tracked her down after she failed to return home, raising concerns about her safety. When they arrived at Chant’s residence, they were prevented from entering by Chant himself and another individual, which further complicated the situation. The girl was later reported missing by her family, who suspected Chant’s involvement and attempted to lure her back by asking her to meet him, under the pretense of a meeting with her family.
During the court hearing, prosecutor Katherine Johnson detailed the events, including the fact that Chant had asked the underage girl out to the Vue cinema at The Rock earlier that year. The girl’s mother, unaware of Chant’s true age, was contacted by her daughter, who said she was going to watch a film with Chant. Concerned, the mother and her partner went to the cinema and found her with Chant. The partner questioned Chant about the girl’s age, to which Chant responded affirmatively, claiming they were just friends and had been with other friends who had left earlier. The mother then instructed her daughter to leave with her, which she did.
Further investigation revealed CCTV footage showing Chant and the girl sitting close together, with evidence of physical contact. Despite their denials of kissing, the footage indicated that Chant had touched her bottom over her clothes. Following these events, Chant was issued a child abduction warning notice, instructing him to stay away from underage girls. However, just three months later, Chant was detained again after the second girl was found at his flat. Her family had tracked her down after she failed to return home, and her disappearance was reported to police.
Chant denied any romantic involvement with the second girl, but police arrested him. During police interviews, Chant claimed he believed the earlier warning notice had been lifted, which was not the case. The court heard that Chant’s actions demonstrated a clear breach of the court’s orders and a disregard for the safety of minors.
Judge Mark Savill delivered the sentence, emphasizing the seriousness of Chant’s offences. He stated, “There is nothing technical about these offences. She was a child and it was sexual activity, and you have to understand the seriousness of it.” The judge acknowledged Chant’s previous good character and genuine remorse but also pointed out his immaturity and age as mitigating factors. Nonetheless, he made it clear that Chant was aware of the risks involved, especially given the child abduction warning in place at the time. The judge warned Chant that any future breach of court orders would result in harsher penalties and emphasized the importance of respecting legal boundaries and safeguarding vulnerable minors.
It was established that Chant was caught on CCTV engaging in inappropriate touching of a girl under the age of 16 while they were both watching a film at a cinema in Bury. The footage showed Chant, who was 18 at the time, sitting in close proximity to the young girl, with their heads moving near each other, indicating a level of intimacy that was inappropriate given her age. The court was told that Chant’s actions included touching her bottom over her clothes and on her leg, although both girls involved refused to cooperate with police investigations or provide statements.
The incident at the cinema was not an isolated event. Approximately three months later, authorities discovered another underage girl at Chant’s flat. This girl’s family had tracked her down after she failed to return home, raising concerns about her safety. When they arrived at Chant’s residence, they were prevented from entering by Chant himself and another individual, which further complicated the situation. The girl was later reported missing by her family, who suspected Chant’s involvement and attempted to lure her back by asking her to meet him, under the pretense of a meeting with her family.
During the court hearing, prosecutor Katherine Johnson detailed the events, including the fact that Chant had asked the underage girl out to the Vue cinema at The Rock earlier that year. The girl’s mother, unaware of Chant’s true age, was contacted by her daughter, who said she was going to watch a film with Chant. Concerned, the mother and her partner went to the cinema and found her with Chant. The partner questioned Chant about the girl’s age, to which Chant responded affirmatively, claiming they were just friends and had been with other friends who had left earlier. The mother then instructed her daughter to leave with her, which she did.
Further investigation revealed CCTV footage showing Chant and the girl sitting close together, with evidence of physical contact. Despite their denials of kissing, the footage indicated that Chant had touched her bottom over her clothes. Following these events, Chant was issued a child abduction warning notice, instructing him to stay away from underage girls. However, just three months later, Chant was detained again after the second girl was found at his flat. Her family had tracked her down after she failed to return home, and her disappearance was reported to police.
Chant denied any romantic involvement with the second girl, but police arrested him. During police interviews, Chant claimed he believed the earlier warning notice had been lifted, which was not the case. The court heard that Chant’s actions demonstrated a clear breach of the court’s orders and a disregard for the safety of minors.
Judge Mark Savill delivered the sentence, emphasizing the seriousness of Chant’s offences. He stated, “There is nothing technical about these offences. She was a child and it was sexual activity, and you have to understand the seriousness of it.” The judge acknowledged Chant’s previous good character and genuine remorse but also pointed out his immaturity and age as mitigating factors. Nonetheless, he made it clear that Chant was aware of the risks involved, especially given the child abduction warning in place at the time. The judge warned Chant that any future breach of court orders would result in harsher penalties and emphasized the importance of respecting legal boundaries and safeguarding vulnerable minors.