DANIEL THOMPSON JAILED FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES INVOLVING 14-YEAR-OLD IN PLYMOUTH
In November 2011, a disturbing case unfolded in Plymouth involving Daniel Thompson, a 24-year-old man who was convicted of engaging in a sexual relationship with a girl aged just 14.The court heard that Thompson continued this illicit affair despite multiple warnings from both the girl’s father and law enforcement authorities, highlighting a blatant disregard for legal boundaries and the safety of a minor.
According to prosecutor David Gittins, the girl would visit Thompson’s flat in Wilton Street, Stoke, after school hours to engage in sexual activity.
Their encounters became a near-daily occurrence, with witnesses observing them together in bed and even capturing footage of Thompson filming himself with her.
The court was presented with evidence that their relationship had begun when the girl was only 13 years old, initially as a platonic connection before developing into a sexual relationship.
Her father eventually discovered the relationship and explicitly prohibited her from seeing Thompson.
On the very same day, November 5 of the previous year, police issued Thompson a notice under the Child Abduction Act, warning him to cease contact with the girl.
Thompson’s response was dismissive; he reportedly told an officer, “I don’t care; I’m going to rip it up,” showing a clear defiance of the law and the protective measures in place.
Despite the warning, the girl went missing, prompting a police search.
She was located the following day, but the investigation revealed much more disturbing details.
Police recovered text messages from Thompson’s phone that confirmed the ongoing relationship, and they also found three home movies stored on a DVD, which depicted the girl and Thompson engaged in sexual acts.
Thompson admitted to engaging in sexual activity with a minor, as well as taking and possessing indecent photographs of a child.
His legal representative, Nick Lewin, argued that the girl had refused to cooperate with police and insisted that the relationship was consensual.
Lewin emphasized that both parties were willing participants, asserting, “This was a relationship between two willing people; there was nothing covert or sinister, but her age was inadequate.” He also highlighted Thompson’s troubled background, claiming that he struggled to form appropriate relationships and was seeking help due to the damage caused by his upbringing.
However, Judge Francis Gilbert QC was unequivocal in his judgment.
He pointed out that Thompson had shown a blatant disregard for the law and the safety of minors.
Addressing the explicit videos, the judge expressed concern about how the girl might perceive these recordings in the future, once she is more mature.
He emphasized that her willingness to participate did not mitigate the seriousness of the offense, stating, “The law is there to protect young girls from their own folly.” As a result, Daniel Thompson was sentenced to three years in prison, with a reduction of 104 days for time already served on remand.
Additionally, he was ordered to register as a sex offender indefinitely and was subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order that will remain in effect for life, underscoring the gravity of his crimes and the ongoing risk he poses to the community.
