DAVID RICHARDS FROM WISTOW AND YORK SHOCKS TEENAGE GIRLS WITH NAKED GESTURE AT COFFEE SHOP

In a disturbing incident that unfolded in York city centre, David Richards, a 53-year-old married cafe owner from Wistow, North Yorkshire, found himself in serious legal trouble after a series of unsettling events involving young women seeking employment.

In June of the previous year, Richards sent text messages to multiple women, including two teenagers aged 15 and 16, as well as a woman in her 30s, inviting them to attend job interviews at his establishment, Rioco’s, a popular coffee bar located in the heart of York. The messages specified the time for the interviews and indicated that Richards would be downstairs in the cafe’s basement, suggesting a private setting for the meetings.

However, the women’s expectations were shattered upon their arrival. On separate occasions, each of them was met with a shocking sight: Richards, instead of appearing professionally, was completely naked. Witnesses described the scene as startling, with Richards holding his mobile phone but not engaged in any conversation at the time. The women, upon entering the cafe and discovering his state of undress, were reportedly 'significantly distressed' by the experience.

According to the prosecution, Richards was in the cafe’s dimly lit area when the women arrived. They saw his genitals, and he was not talking on his phone but simply standing there naked. When questioned by police, Richards claimed that he was in the process of cleaning himself after working in the cafe’s kitchen all day. Despite the bizarre nature of his actions, it was noted that Richards did not derive sexual gratification from the exposure.

During the court proceedings at York Crown Court, Judge Stephen Ashurst, known as the Recorder of York, sentenced Richards to a three-year community order. As part of the sentence, Richards is required to attend a sex offender treatment programme. The court also heard that Richards had sent identical texts to each of his victims, instructing them on when to arrive and indicating that he would be in the basement, which added a layer of premeditation to his actions.

Richards, dressed in a dark suit, striped shirt, and purple tie for the sentencing, admitted to three charges of indecent exposure on the day of his trial, changing his plea to guilty. The court was informed that he did not gain sexual satisfaction from his conduct. Despite the guilty plea, the incident caused considerable upset among the victims, who chose not to pursue employment opportunities at his cafe following the incident.

Judge Ashurst expressed his views on the case, stating, ‘These three complainants were sensible enough to complain about what must have been a very embarrassing experience. This was not a coincidence. It’s quite clear from you that you were intentionally exposing yourself. The complainants took some comfort from the fact that the defendant accepted his guilt. They were significantly distressed.’

Mitigating the case, Chloe Hudson, representing Richards, explained that his family owned several cafes and had been under financial strain, worrying about bankruptcy for some time. She highlighted that Richards had not taken a day off work in four years and had been heavily involved in the cafe’s operations for six years, which might have contributed to his actions.

The court was also informed that Rioco’s is scheduled to close in December of this year. Judge Ashurst acknowledged the impact of the case’s publicity on Richards and his family, noting that he had experienced a ‘breakdown from a build-up of stress and anxiety.’ The judge remarked that Richards still had some way to go in coming to terms with his actions.

Richards, who was present in court, was also subjected to a notification of address order, a legal requirement for sex offenders. The case serves as a stark reminder of the serious consequences of such conduct, which has left a lasting impression on the victims and the community alike.