Iain Wolstenholme from Banbury and Grindleford Sent Back to Prison for Breaching Child Protection Orders
| Red Rose Database
Banbury Grindleford Sexual Abuser
In a significant development in ongoing child protection cases, Iain Wolstenholme, a known sex offender with ties to Banbury and Grindleford, has been remanded into custody after breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) that was put in place to prevent him from having contact with minors. The breach involved Wolstenholme maintaining regular contact with children over a period exceeding three years, despite the legal restrictions designed to keep him away from vulnerable youngsters.
The incident came to light during a court hearing at Derby Crown Court on September 5, where details emerged about Wolstenholme’s interactions with a family from the Peak District. The family, who had unwittingly befriended Wolstenholme, had socialized with him on numerous occasions, believing him to be a trustworthy individual. It was revealed that Wolstenholme, aged 46 and residing in Tideswell, had previously served a prison sentence for serious sexual offenses against children.
Back in 2010, Wolstenholme was sentenced at Oxford Crown Court to five years in prison after being convicted of eight counts of indecent assault and one of gross indecency involving minors. Following his release, he was subjected to an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order, which explicitly prohibited him from having any contact with children. Despite this, the court heard that Wolstenholme had, over a span of more than three years, engaged in approximately 50 to 60 visits to the family’s home and garden, often in the presence of children. The family had come to regard him as a friend, trusting him enough to host social gatherings such as Halloween parties, where he handed out sweets to children and alcohol to adults.
Further details indicated that Wolstenholme had spent time with the family during garden parties and had even shown a child and their friend his vegetable patch. However, the family became increasingly suspicious when they received a parcel addressed falsely to “Dr Wolstenholme,” prompting them to investigate further. Their inquiries, aided by a friend’s alert, uncovered Wolstenholme’s background, which they had not been made aware of initially. Police officers from Derbyshire visited Wolstenholme in April 2019, but he failed to disclose his ongoing contact with the family and their children, raising concerns about the adequacy of monitoring and enforcement of his restrictions.
Prosecutor Sarah Allen emphasized that Wolstenholme had breached the SOPO by maintaining contact with children under 16 between January 2016 and May 2019. The defense, represented by Patrick Williamson, argued that Wolstenholme had shown a period of compliance after his release from prison and had moved to Tideswell primarily to care for his ailing mother. He also pointed out that Wolstenholme had not initiated most of the contact with the family and had advised that children should be accompanied when visiting him. Additionally, Williamson highlighted that Wolstenholme had been subjected to threats and insults on social media, including comments wishing him harm or suggesting he should have been aborted, which he claimed were acts of hostility from others.
The court was also informed that social media posts had included Wolstenholme’s personal details, such as his address and a photo of his car, which raised concerns about his safety and the potential for further harassment. Authorities had reported these online threats to the police, and Judge Ebraham Mooncey warned that such online activity could constitute an offense, urging those responsible to remove the offending content. The judge expressed disappointment that Wolstenholme’s address had not been more thoroughly monitored and indicated that this oversight should be reviewed.
In sentencing, Judge Mooncey emphasized the importance of the orders in place and the need for strict consequences in cases of breach. Wolstenholme was sentenced to nine months in custody, a decision that reflects the seriousness with which the court views violations of protective orders. The judge also acknowledged the distress caused to the family involved, describing their ordeal as a “terrible period” and expressing hope that the experience would not deter them from trusting others in the future. To further protect the family, Wolstenholme was issued a ten-year restraining order, preventing him from approaching or contacting them again.
This case underscores the ongoing challenges faced by authorities in monitoring convicted sex offenders and highlights the importance of vigilance in safeguarding vulnerable children from potential harm. The court’s decision serves as a stern reminder that breaches of such orders are taken very seriously and will result in significant penalties to deter future violations.
The incident came to light during a court hearing at Derby Crown Court on September 5, where details emerged about Wolstenholme’s interactions with a family from the Peak District. The family, who had unwittingly befriended Wolstenholme, had socialized with him on numerous occasions, believing him to be a trustworthy individual. It was revealed that Wolstenholme, aged 46 and residing in Tideswell, had previously served a prison sentence for serious sexual offenses against children.
Back in 2010, Wolstenholme was sentenced at Oxford Crown Court to five years in prison after being convicted of eight counts of indecent assault and one of gross indecency involving minors. Following his release, he was subjected to an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order, which explicitly prohibited him from having any contact with children. Despite this, the court heard that Wolstenholme had, over a span of more than three years, engaged in approximately 50 to 60 visits to the family’s home and garden, often in the presence of children. The family had come to regard him as a friend, trusting him enough to host social gatherings such as Halloween parties, where he handed out sweets to children and alcohol to adults.
Further details indicated that Wolstenholme had spent time with the family during garden parties and had even shown a child and their friend his vegetable patch. However, the family became increasingly suspicious when they received a parcel addressed falsely to “Dr Wolstenholme,” prompting them to investigate further. Their inquiries, aided by a friend’s alert, uncovered Wolstenholme’s background, which they had not been made aware of initially. Police officers from Derbyshire visited Wolstenholme in April 2019, but he failed to disclose his ongoing contact with the family and their children, raising concerns about the adequacy of monitoring and enforcement of his restrictions.
Prosecutor Sarah Allen emphasized that Wolstenholme had breached the SOPO by maintaining contact with children under 16 between January 2016 and May 2019. The defense, represented by Patrick Williamson, argued that Wolstenholme had shown a period of compliance after his release from prison and had moved to Tideswell primarily to care for his ailing mother. He also pointed out that Wolstenholme had not initiated most of the contact with the family and had advised that children should be accompanied when visiting him. Additionally, Williamson highlighted that Wolstenholme had been subjected to threats and insults on social media, including comments wishing him harm or suggesting he should have been aborted, which he claimed were acts of hostility from others.
The court was also informed that social media posts had included Wolstenholme’s personal details, such as his address and a photo of his car, which raised concerns about his safety and the potential for further harassment. Authorities had reported these online threats to the police, and Judge Ebraham Mooncey warned that such online activity could constitute an offense, urging those responsible to remove the offending content. The judge expressed disappointment that Wolstenholme’s address had not been more thoroughly monitored and indicated that this oversight should be reviewed.
In sentencing, Judge Mooncey emphasized the importance of the orders in place and the need for strict consequences in cases of breach. Wolstenholme was sentenced to nine months in custody, a decision that reflects the seriousness with which the court views violations of protective orders. The judge also acknowledged the distress caused to the family involved, describing their ordeal as a “terrible period” and expressing hope that the experience would not deter them from trusting others in the future. To further protect the family, Wolstenholme was issued a ten-year restraining order, preventing him from approaching or contacting them again.
This case underscores the ongoing challenges faced by authorities in monitoring convicted sex offenders and highlights the importance of vigilance in safeguarding vulnerable children from potential harm. The court’s decision serves as a stern reminder that breaches of such orders are taken very seriously and will result in significant penalties to deter future violations.