FRANCIS DAWSON AND HIS SHOCKING BREACHES IN HULL
A man previously convicted of sexual offences, identified as Francis Dawson, was found to have a 10-year-old boy living illegally in his home during a court visit, disregarding a court order designed to protect children.The authorities responded to a tip-off that prompted a visit to Dawson’s residence, where they discovered him alone in the house with the young boy in the kitchen.
This discovery was particularly alarming given Dawson’s history and the strict legal restrictions placed on him.
Dawson had a lifelong ban preventing children from entering his house following a series of sex offences committed against both male and female minors.
It was made very clear during court proceedings at Hull Crown Court that Dawson bore the ultimate responsibility for adhering to these restrictions.
Despite knowing the severe consequences he faced, especially after having served time for his initial crimes, Dawson brazenly ignored the court orders.
The court was told that authorities intervened to remove the boy from Dawson’s home for his protection.
However, just two days later, social services and police discovered that the boy was back in the same household, living with his mother.
This sequence of events highlighted the ongoing risk posed by Dawson, who had ignored repeated legal bans.
Stephen Welch, the prosecutor, detailed that Dawson’s criminal history included a conviction in 2008 for multiple sexual offences involving both boys and girls.
Following that conviction, Dawson was subject to an indefinite sexual harm prevention order, which specifically prohibited him from residing with children under 18 or even having contact with them.
Nevertheless, on May 12, a woman and her 10-year-old son moved into Dawson’s home on Ings Road, East Hull, ostensibly as a favour, knowing that this act directly violated the court order.
The authorities only became aware of this breach two weeks later, when social services and police were alerted.
During their visit, they found the boy in the kitchen going about his meal preparations using a tablet computer, while his mother was away working.
Following this discovery, social services moved the child and mother into secure accommodation.
However, the situation took a turn when, on May 27, police received a call from social services reporting that the mother and son had gone missing from their hotel accommodation.
A police check revealed that the woman was at Dawson’s address, which was confirmed when an officer answered her.
The 10-year-old was found there doing schoolwork on a tablet.
Dawson’s arrest followed, primarily because, as a registered sex offender, he was prohibited from having any contact or access to children.
Despite being removed from the house, the mother and her son returned there just a few days later.
In court, defense mitigation was presented by Dale Brook, who explained that Dawson’s wife had intended to assist by providing shelter to the mother and child.
However, he emphasized that Dawson himself held the responsibility to adhere strictly to the court’s orders.
“He is ultimately responsible for ensuring that he complied with the order,” Mr.
Brook stated.
“It is no excuse that he turned a blind eye to it.
He knows there is an order and he knows there is a child in the house.
He has been imprisoned for these breaches.” It was also noted that Dawson’s previous sexual offences occurred many years ago, and that there had been no recent sexual misconduct.
Despite this, the court’s focus was on Dawson’s breach of the legal restrictions and the risk posed to the child involved.
Judge John Thackray QC sentenced Dawson to one year in prison after he pleaded guilty to breaching a sexual harm prevention order between May 12 and 27, as well as failing to comply with notification requirements as a sex offender.
Dawson had been held in custody on remand prior to sentencing.
The judge made it clear that Dawson’s failure to accept responsibility and his pattern of breach indicated he remained a significant danger to children.
“I am not satisfied that your risk can be managed in the community and I am not satisfied that you can be rehabilitated there,” the judge stated.
“My priority is to protect the public from you.”
