ERIC COX FROM MIDDLESBROUGH CAUGHT IN CHILD SEX OFFENDER SCANDAL AT TEESSIDE CROWN COURT
In April 2019, the troubling case of Eric Cox, a known sex offender from Middlesbrough, came under intense scrutiny as he faced charges related to breaching court-mandated restrictions and failing to declare email accounts.Cox, aged 59, had a long history of sexual offenses, including a five-year prison sentence handed down in January 2016 for abusing a young boy and engaging in sexual acts that left a lasting impact on the victim for over two decades.
The court heard that Cox’s previous conviction stemmed from heinous acts committed against a boy, which included forcing the child to watch a pornographic film while Cox’s wife was away.
The judge at Teesside Crown Court described Cox as showing no remorse and openly admitting to having a 'keen sexual interest in children.' Cox was convicted by a jury on two counts of indecent assault, and his sentence reflected the severity of his crimes.
He was sentenced to five years in prison, placed under an indefinite sexual harm prevention order (SHPO), and mandated to register as a sex offender for life.
Despite his incarceration, Cox’s legal troubles persisted.
Nearly three years after his initial sentencing, he admitted to failing in his duty to comply with notification requirements while on license.
Prosecutor Jo Kidd revealed that during a routine check, a detective discovered a mobile phone in Cox’s Middlesbrough home, specifically in his wardrobe.
The phone contained two email addresses registered in Cox’s name, which he had not previously disclosed to authorities.
Although no evidence suggested these accounts were used for further breaches of his SHPO, the discovery was enough to warrant further action.
At a hearing in March, Cox’s defense lawyer, Nigel Soppitt, argued that Cox was making efforts to reform.
He stated that Cox had volunteered for a new electronic monitoring scheme, undergone polygraph tests, and was under close supervision.
Nevertheless, Judge Sean Morris sentenced Cox to a one-year community order with 15 days of rehabilitation activities for this breach.
Cox’s criminal history is extensive.
In 2005, he received a two-year sentence for sexual offenses involving a young girl, and in 2009, he was convicted of accessing indecent images of children on the internet.
The court also noted that Cox had previously been jailed for two years for sexual contact with a young girl and had a history of online child pornography offenses.
During the 2016 trial, the court heard harrowing details of Cox’s abuse.
A victim, who was only seven years old at the time, recounted how Cox committed sexual acts against him and planted a kiss on his forehead.
The victim, from East Cleveland, described how Cox had forced him to watch a pornographic film while his wife was at work.
When the victim finally reported the abuse last year, Cox, then unemployed, denied any wrongdoing.
However, the jury was convinced by the detailed testimony, leading to his conviction.
The judge emphasized the lasting trauma inflicted on the victim, stating, “He was vulnerable and he told the jury he simply submitted to your instruction.
You sent him away with a kiss on the forehead.
He has had to live with the memory for decades, and it is a memory that will never leave him.” The court also noted Cox’s lack of remorse, which influenced the severity of his sentence.
Further complicating Cox’s criminal record, in November 2009, he was jailed for downloading thousands of child pornography images.
During a routine visit by officers from the public protection unit, they seized Cox’s computer and discovered over 2,117 images, including 114 depicting bestiality.
A subsequent search of his home uncovered a laptop containing more than 200 disturbing images.
Cox claimed he no longer possessed a computer, but evidence proved otherwise.
The images ranged from low-level to more severe categories, with some classified as level three and four, indicating more explicit content.
Prosecutor Joanne Kidd highlighted that Cox’s continued possession and downloading of such material demonstrated an uncontrollable and unhealthy interest.
Despite his previous convictions and ongoing restrictions, Cox admitted to downloading and saving indecent images, which he acknowledged were of minors under 18, with some under 13.
In court, Cox pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including 32 counts of making indecent photographs of children, two counts of possessing indecent images, and two counts of possessing pornographic material.
His defense argued that most of the images were at the lower end of the severity spectrum, but the court took into account his repeated offenses and the nature of the material.
Overall, the case of Eric Cox from Middlesbrough underscores a troubling pattern of sexual misconduct and violations of court orders, highlighting the ongoing challenges faced by authorities in monitoring and managing convicted sex offenders.
His history of abuse, online offenses, and breaches of legal restrictions paint a stark picture of a man with a deeply troubling criminal background, whose actions continue to pose a risk to society.
