DAVID BARNES SHOCKING CHILD SEX OFFENDER FROM CONSETT AND DARLINGTON ESCAPES JAIL

In a case that has sparked widespread outrage and concern over judicial sentencing in child abuse cases, David Barnes, a 24-year-old man now residing in Consett, has been handed a surprisingly lenient sentence despite his serious criminal activities involving minors. The case, which was heard at Teesside Crown Court, revealed disturbing details about Barnes's actions and the judicial decisions that followed.

Back in April 2011, Barnes was involved in a deeply troubling case where he was accused of seducing a 13-year-old girl. The judge presiding over the case, Judge Peter Fox, caused a storm of criticism by choosing to release Barnes with a suspended sentence, despite the gravity of his offenses. The judge stated that the 13-year-old victim had, in his words, seduced Barnes, a claim that has been widely condemned as both inaccurate and inappropriate given the age and vulnerability of the victim.

During the investigation, authorities uncovered that Barnes had engaged in online activities that included encouraging the young girl to perform intimate acts while he watched via webcam. The police also discovered that Barnes had downloaded over 600 vile images and videos on his computer, some depicting the rape of a five-year-old girl while she was handcuffed. These findings paint a picture of a man deeply involved in the possession and distribution of child abuse material, as well as engaging in predatory online behavior.

Barnes admitted to 17 charges related to making indecent images and a further charge of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. Despite these serious admissions, when he appeared before Judge Fox for sentencing, he was given a four-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, along with supervision and 300 hours of unpaid community work. The judge acknowledged Barnes's guilty plea and his previous good character but justified the leniency by stating that a short prison term would not prevent future offending. He expressed concern that incarceration would not serve as an effective deterrent, especially since Barnes was already participating in a sex offender treatment program that would not be available behind bars.

Judge Fox's comments drew sharp criticism from the National Victims’ Association. Neil Atkinson, a spokesperson for the organization, emphasized the importance of protecting children, stating, “Thirteen-year-olds have to be protected. It goes without saying, they are children. Intellectually, ethically and legally, this girl — or anyone of that age — could not possibly have been on the same level as a man in his 20s. No 13-year-old can be realistically accused of seducing a man of this age. We find it incomprehensible that a judge could say so. It is abhorrent that anyone in their 20s should, in effect, go unpunished for something that could have led to a far more serious offence.”

Barnes's criminal history includes previous incidents, notably in 2009 when he was arrested following police investigations into chatroom conversations involving the 13-year-old girl and other adult males. Judge Fox, who took into account Barnes's guilty plea and character references, explained that a custodial sentence would be ineffective, as it would only be for a few weeks and would not prevent re-offending. The judge expressed concern for the future safety of children, which he prioritized over harsher sentencing.

In addition to Barnes's case, Judge Fox has a history of controversial decisions. In 2009, he allowed a man named Jonathan Kent, aged 21, to walk free after having sex with two girls aged 13 and 15, merely asking whether the girls were virgins. Similarly, in 2001, he gave a suspended sentence to Mark Eyles, 23, for indecent assault on three teenage girls, dismissing their complaints as “silly.” ChildLine publicly condemned the judge’s comments in that case, describing them as “outrageous.”

As the case continues to resonate within the community and among advocacy groups, many remain concerned about the adequacy of judicial responses to crimes involving minors, especially in cases where the offenders are given suspended sentences despite the severity of their actions.