DANIEL PETRIE FROM LEOMINSTER FACES JAIL OVER INTERNET SEX OFFENCES

In December 2018, a man named Daniel Petrie, residing on Clingo Road in Leominster, was sentenced after admitting to serious online sexual offences involving a young girl. The case revealed that Petrie, aged 21 at the time, had engaged in disturbing conduct over the internet, targeting a girl who was approximately 13 or 14 years old during the period of the offences.

According to court records, Petrie pleaded guilty to two counts of inciting a child to participate in sexual activity and one count of causing a child to engage in sexual acts. These offences occurred between January 1, 2016, and June 28, 2016, and involved a girl who was at the time between 13 and 14 years old. The nature of the crimes was particularly troubling, as they involved the manipulation and exploitation of a minor through digital means.

At Worcester Crown Court, Judge Jim Tindal presided over the case and delivered the sentence. Petrie was handed a community order that would last for two years, which included a requirement to participate in 40 days of rehabilitation activities aimed at addressing his behaviour. Additionally, Petrie was subjected to a curfew that mandated him to remain at his residence from 7 pm to 7 am, with this restriction set to conclude on January 23, 2019.

Furthermore, Petrie was issued a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, which will be in effect for five years. He will also be registered on the Sex Offenders Register for the same duration, ensuring ongoing monitoring of his activities and compliance with legal restrictions. These measures reflect the serious nature of his offences and the efforts of the justice system to prevent future harm.

Earlier in October 2018, Petrie had already admitted to similar internet-based sexual offences when he appeared before the court. During that hearing, he acknowledged two counts of inciting a child to take part in sexual activity and one count of causing a child to engage in sexual acts. A fourth count, also related to inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, was denied by Petrie and remains on file.

During the October hearing, Petrie’s legal representative, Abigail Nixon, requested that the probation service prepare a pre-sentence report to assist in determining an appropriate punishment. Judge Tindal responded by emphasizing the gravity of the offences, noting that Petrie would be required to sign the Sex Offenders Register as part of his sentence.

Judge Tindal also indicated that, given the offences occurred online, there might be consideration of alternatives to immediate imprisonment. However, he made it clear that this was not guaranteed and that custody remained a serious possibility. The judge adjourned the case until November to allow for further assessments and reports, underscoring the severity with which the court viewed Petrie’s actions and the potential consequences he faces.