COLIN GRIFFITHS FROM GRIMSBY CAUGHT GROOMING TEEN GIRLS ON FACEBOOK AND MEETING THEM FOR KISSES AND CUDDLES
| Red Rose Database
Grimsby Sexual Abuser
In a disturbing case brought before Grimsby Crown Court, Colin Griffiths, aged 22 and residing on Sorrel Road in Grimsby, was found guilty of engaging in inappropriate and illegal conduct involving two teenage girls he had groomed through social media platforms. The court heard that Griffiths had established online contact with the girls, both of whom were minors at the time, and subsequently arranged to meet them in person, leading to inappropriate physical contact.
According to the prosecution, Rachael Harrison, the case revealed that Griffiths had been actively grooming a 13-year-old girl via Facebook. The young girl had posted a message expressing her happiness about having a boyfriend, stating, “Wow. So happy. Got a boyfriend.” Her mother, concerned about her daughter’s online interactions, challenged her, which led to the discovery that Griffiths had sent her eight text messages containing sexual content. The two had initially connected on a dating website, and their communication escalated to plans for a face-to-face meeting.
In a separate incident, a 15-year-old girl received a Facebook message from Griffiths that read, “Hiya, doll. How are you?” Along with this message, he sent four naked photographs of himself and expressed his affection by saying, “I love you.” The girl and Griffiths eventually met in person, where they shared kisses and cuddles. The court emphasized that both girls engaged with Griffiths consensually, and there was no evidence of coercion or forced sexual activity.
During the proceedings, Miss Harrison clarified that Griffiths’s interactions with the second girl were more sexually explicit than with the first, but he maintained that his actions did not go beyond the physical contact of kisses and cuddles. He admitted that the girls had suggested meeting up, and he had responded with enthusiasm, but no further sexual acts occurred.
In mitigation, Jonathan Spicer highlighted that Griffiths acknowledged the more sexual nature of his communication with the second girl but insisted that he did not coerce or pressure either girl into any sexual activity beyond what was physically exchanged. He stressed that Griffiths’s conduct was limited to the physical contact of kisses and cuddles, and no further sexual acts took place.
As a result of his actions, Griffiths was sentenced to a three-year supervision order, which includes participation in a sex offender treatment programme. Additionally, he was issued a five-year sexual offences prevention order and was mandated to register as a sex offender for five years. The court’s decision reflects the seriousness of grooming and inappropriate conduct involving minors, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding vulnerable young individuals from exploitation and abuse.
According to the prosecution, Rachael Harrison, the case revealed that Griffiths had been actively grooming a 13-year-old girl via Facebook. The young girl had posted a message expressing her happiness about having a boyfriend, stating, “Wow. So happy. Got a boyfriend.” Her mother, concerned about her daughter’s online interactions, challenged her, which led to the discovery that Griffiths had sent her eight text messages containing sexual content. The two had initially connected on a dating website, and their communication escalated to plans for a face-to-face meeting.
In a separate incident, a 15-year-old girl received a Facebook message from Griffiths that read, “Hiya, doll. How are you?” Along with this message, he sent four naked photographs of himself and expressed his affection by saying, “I love you.” The girl and Griffiths eventually met in person, where they shared kisses and cuddles. The court emphasized that both girls engaged with Griffiths consensually, and there was no evidence of coercion or forced sexual activity.
During the proceedings, Miss Harrison clarified that Griffiths’s interactions with the second girl were more sexually explicit than with the first, but he maintained that his actions did not go beyond the physical contact of kisses and cuddles. He admitted that the girls had suggested meeting up, and he had responded with enthusiasm, but no further sexual acts occurred.
In mitigation, Jonathan Spicer highlighted that Griffiths acknowledged the more sexual nature of his communication with the second girl but insisted that he did not coerce or pressure either girl into any sexual activity beyond what was physically exchanged. He stressed that Griffiths’s conduct was limited to the physical contact of kisses and cuddles, and no further sexual acts took place.
As a result of his actions, Griffiths was sentenced to a three-year supervision order, which includes participation in a sex offender treatment programme. Additionally, he was issued a five-year sexual offences prevention order and was mandated to register as a sex offender for five years. The court’s decision reflects the seriousness of grooming and inappropriate conduct involving minors, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding vulnerable young individuals from exploitation and abuse.