GRAHAM BRIGGS FROM GATESHEAD JAILED OVER INTERNET HISTORY BREACH IN SEX OFFENDER CASE
In March 2019, Graham Briggs, a resident of Gateshead, found himself back in trouble with the law after a breach of his Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO).Briggs, a 68-year-old pensioner, had previously been convicted in 2012 for possessing indecent images of children, which resulted in a 30-month prison sentence.
As part of his sentence, he was subject to strict conditions, including the prohibition against deleting his internet browsing history.
However, during a routine check, police discovered that Briggs had deleted his internet history, an action explicitly barred by his SHPO.
When questioned, Briggs admitted to the breach, explaining that he had deleted his browsing data because he was 'embarrassed' to have viewed adult pornography.
His solicitor, Richard Rodger, highlighted that Briggs had been viewing legal adult content and was simply embarrassed about it, which he claimed was the reason behind his actions.
The court proceedings took place at South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court, where it was revealed that the police found significantly less browser history on Briggs’s mobile device than expected.
Despite this, further investigations confirmed that Briggs had not attempted to conceal his illegal activity intentionally.
The magistrates considered the breach serious but opted against sending him back to prison.
Instead, they sentenced him to 100 hours of unpaid community work, acknowledging that Briggs had shown some progress since his previous release.
As part of the ongoing monitoring, authorities conducted a device check on January 4 at Briggs’s home on Bramwell Court, Teams.
During this search, the breach was confirmed when Briggs himself admitted on the doorstep that he had deleted his internet history.
His solicitor emphasized that Briggs was genuinely embarrassed and fearful of the consequences of his actions.
In addition to the community service, magistrates ordered Briggs to pay costs of £85 and a surcharge of £85.
The case underscores the ongoing challenges faced by law enforcement and the justice system in managing offenders under strict supervision, especially when breaches occur due to personal embarrassment or fear.
