GRAHAM PILKINGTON BURNS BURNLEY WITH BREACHES OF SEXUAL HARM PREVENTION ORDER
In a troubling development in Burnley, Graham Pilkington, a 30-year-old resident of Wordsworth Street, found himself at the center of legal proceedings after he was accused of violating a sexual harm prevention order shortly after it was issued.The breaches occurred within just a few weeks of the order being put into place, raising serious concerns about his compliance and the effectiveness of the measures designed to protect the community.
During a hearing at Blackburn magistrates' court, it was revealed that Pilkington’s violations also constituted a breach of a previously imposed suspended prison sentence.
This sentence had been handed down as a result of his earlier convictions related to internet sex offenses involving minors.
The court heard that these offenses included making indecent images of children and attempting to facilitate child sex offenses, for which he was convicted in April.
Graham Pilkington pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including failing to adhere to a notification order by informing police of a new bank card, deleting internet browsing history from an iPhone, possessing a USB stick in breach of the order, and failing to produce an internet-enabled tablet when requested by law enforcement officers.
These actions directly contravened the restrictions and controls set out in the sexual harm prevention order, which was intended to monitor and restrict his online activity and contact with minors.
The breaches prompted the police to conduct a compliance visit, during which they discovered the new bank card, the deleted internet history, and the iPhone.
Pilkington claimed he did not have the devices or information in question, but the evidence suggested otherwise.
The police’s findings indicated that he had deliberately done what the order was designed to prevent, raising serious concerns about his intentions and compliance.
Following the revelations, Pilkington was remanded into custody and was scheduled to be sentenced at Preston Crown Court on July 27.
The prosecution, led by Catherine Allan, emphasized the gravity of the situation, noting that the breaches occurred so soon after the original order was imposed that the suspended prison sentence was likely to be activated.
The defense, represented by Mark Williams, argued that the offenses alone might not warrant immediate imprisonment but acknowledged that the proximity to his previous convictions made the likelihood of the suspended sentence being enforced very high.
Overall, the case highlights ongoing issues with compliance among individuals convicted of internet-related sex offenses and underscores the importance of strict monitoring and enforcement of court orders meant to safeguard vulnerable members of the community.
