DANIEL PARKINSON SENTENCED IN BRIGHTON FOR GROOMING 14-YEAR-OLD THROUGH PRISON LETTERS

In October 2007, a man named Daniel Parkinson, residing at Coastal Counties House on Sussex Street in Brighton, was sentenced to a total of 22 months in prison after being found guilty of grooming a 14-year-old girl through a series of inappropriate letters sent from prison. The case drew significant attention due to the disturbing nature of the communication and the circumstances surrounding the grooming.

Parkinson, aged 22 at the time, had initially befriended the young girl while he was on holiday in Broadstairs. The girl, whose identity is protected for legal reasons, was only 14 years old when their relationship began. The court heard that Parkinson, who was serving time at Lewes prison for driving offences, maintained contact with her by writing numerous letters and making phone calls, which contained highly inappropriate content.

According to court proceedings, Parkinson sent her 18 letters from prison, in which he expressed his love and even spoke of having a tattoo with her name—later claiming it was the name of his late sister. The letters included references to sexual acts, such as using a hairbrush as a sex aid, and detailed fantasies involving the girl, including seeing her in silk underwear. He also asked if she had been good enough to warrant punishment and expressed a desire to marry her. The girl responded with four letters, and in one of her photographs sent to him, Parkinson replied that he would like to be in bed with her watching her sleep, which further highlighted the inappropriate nature of their correspondence.

Canterbury Crown Court was told that the girl’s responses and the content of Parkinson’s letters prompted prison authorities at Lewes to monitor his mail and phone calls. This surveillance was initiated after authorities received a reply from the girl, which raised concerns about the nature of their relationship. The authorities acted swiftly, recording calls and scrutinizing the correspondence to prevent further misconduct.

It was also revealed that Parkinson had driven the girl and her friends to beaches, kissed her, held her hand, and bought her gifts such as a watch, perfume, and a cuddly toy. There were reports that he sometimes provided alcohol to the young girl and her friends, raising further concerns about his conduct.

During the trial, the court heard that Parkinson was accused of raping the girl, though he was later acquitted of these charges. The relationship ended when the girl learned that Parkinson was on remand for the rape allegations. Judge Adele Williams sentenced Parkinson to 22 months, deducting the 230 days he had already served on remand. She described the contents of his letters and phone calls as “wholly inappropriate” and emphasized the seriousness of his actions.

In addition to his prison sentence, Parkinson was ordered to comply with a sexual offences prevention order and will remain on the sex offenders register for ten years. The prosecution, led by Annabelle Maxwell-Scott, highlighted that the relationship began at the end of August the previous year, when the girl was just 14. The court was told that Parkinson’s actions included giving her alcohol and engaging in physical contact beyond kissing, although he denied knowing her true age during police interviews.

Parkinson’s defense attorney, Julian Woodbridge, argued that his client had a troubled background and that his actions were driven by fantasy and loneliness rather than predatory intent. He stated that Parkinson’s relationship with the girl was not predatory and that his client was experiencing deep emotional distress while in prison, which contributed to his behavior. Mr. Woodbridge emphasized that Parkinson needed help for his drug and alcohol issues and described his lifestyle as chaotic.

In response, a Ministry of Justice spokeswoman explained that prison authorities monitor approximately one in ten letters sent by prisoners, with exceptions made for legal correspondence. She confirmed that all letters are scrutinized if there are known child protection concerns, underscoring the importance of safeguarding measures within the prison system.