DANIEL READ SENTENCED IN GOOLE FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES INVOLVING VULNERABLE TEENAGERS

In September 2012, a serious case unfolded in Goole involving Daniel Read, a 21-year-old man who was convicted of engaging in sexual activities with three underage girls. The incident drew significant attention from the local community and the judicial system, highlighting the ongoing concerns about protecting vulnerable minors.

According to court records, Read admitted to having sexual relations with three girls, all described as vulnerable due to their age and personal circumstances. Two of these girls were only 13 years old, while the third was 15. The sexual encounters took place at different times between August of the previous year and June of the current year, with the acts occurring at Read’s residence on Edinburgh Street in Goole.

Prosecutor James Byatt provided details during the hearing at Hull Crown Court, emphasizing that the girls had consented to the sexual acts, which occurred at Read’s home. Despite their consent, the court recognized the serious nature of the offenses, given the girls’ ages and vulnerabilities. The court was also informed that Read’s parents had died within days of each other, and his personal life was marked by turmoil, including his fiancée leaving him for his brother.

During police questioning, Read initially denied the allegations, specifically denying three counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. However, he later admitted to all charges, acknowledging his guilt.

Defense lawyer Steven Garth argued that Read had shown genuine remorse and did not target the girls maliciously. Garth described his client as a person who was deeply regretful for his actions, emphasizing that Read was not a predator but someone who had made grave mistakes. He also highlighted that Read had spent 45 days in remand at Hull Prison, describing him as a “shadow of his former self,” subdued, and overwhelmed by remorse.

Judge Michael Mettyear, the Honorary Recorder of Hull and the East Riding, presided over the case. In his sentencing remarks, he stressed the importance of protecting under-16s from harm, even from themselves. The judge acknowledged Read’s immaturity, noting that he was not only young in years but also emotionally immature for his age. Nonetheless, he made it clear that this immaturity did not justify or excuse the criminal behavior.

Addressing the circumstances, Judge Mettyear pointed out that the victims were particularly vulnerable, each facing their own personal issues, with two of them being in foster care and involved with social services. The court recognized the gravity of the offenses, which involved minors with complex backgrounds and vulnerabilities.

While considering the case, the judge noted that the law allows for some leniency based on personal circumstances. He explained that the typical sentencing range for such offenses is between three and seven years of imprisonment. Given Read’s difficult personal history and the profound impact these events had on him, the judge decided to show some mercy.

Ultimately, Daniel Read was sentenced to two years in prison. Additionally, he was ordered to sign the sex offenders’ register for a period of ten years, reflecting the seriousness of his crimes and the need for ongoing monitoring to protect the community.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of safeguarding vulnerable children and the judicial system’s role in ensuring offenders are held accountable while considering individual circumstances.