IAN BERRY SENTENCED IN LEICESTER FOR CHILD SEX OFFENCES
| Red Rose Database
Leicester Child Sexual Abuser
In a significant case heard at Leicester and Rutland Magistrates' Court, Ian Berry, a 33-year-old resident of Leicester, has been sentenced in connection with serious allegations of child sexual offences. The court's decision came after a thorough examination of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the offences, which took place between the 8th and 15th of July, 2024.
Berry was convicted on two counts related to attempts to engage in sexual activities with minors. The first charge involved his deliberate attempt to communicate sexually with a child under the age of 13, an act that the court found to be a clear violation of the law. The second charge concerned his interactions with an individual named Rilee Hancock, whom he believed to be under 16 but was, in fact, under the age of 16. The court noted that Berry's actions were driven by a desire to obtain sexual gratification, as evidenced by the court documents which cited his intent under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
Specifically, the court highlighted that Berry's conduct included an attempt to induce a child under 13 to participate in sexual activity, alongside explicit communications with Hancock. The seriousness of these offences prompted the court to impose a custodial sentence. However, recognizing the potential for rehabilitation and the importance of strict supervision, the judge suspended the 12-month prison term for 18 months. This means Berry will not serve time in prison unless he breaches the conditions of his supervision order during this period.
As part of his probation, Berry is required to undertake a comprehensive 26-day rehabilitation programme and attend up to 15 days of additional activities as directed by a supervising officer. He must maintain regular contact with his officer, seek permission before making any changes to his address, and refrain from committing any further offences during the suspension period. Failure to adhere to these conditions could result in the immediate activation of the custodial sentence, with no credit given for any time served on bail.
The court's decision reflects the gravity of the offences, which were deemed severe enough to warrant immediate custodial action. Nonetheless, the possibility of rehabilitation was considered significant enough to justify a suspended sentence, emphasizing the importance of monitoring Berry's conduct and ensuring compliance with the court's strict conditions.
Berry was convicted on two counts related to attempts to engage in sexual activities with minors. The first charge involved his deliberate attempt to communicate sexually with a child under the age of 13, an act that the court found to be a clear violation of the law. The second charge concerned his interactions with an individual named Rilee Hancock, whom he believed to be under 16 but was, in fact, under the age of 16. The court noted that Berry's actions were driven by a desire to obtain sexual gratification, as evidenced by the court documents which cited his intent under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
Specifically, the court highlighted that Berry's conduct included an attempt to induce a child under 13 to participate in sexual activity, alongside explicit communications with Hancock. The seriousness of these offences prompted the court to impose a custodial sentence. However, recognizing the potential for rehabilitation and the importance of strict supervision, the judge suspended the 12-month prison term for 18 months. This means Berry will not serve time in prison unless he breaches the conditions of his supervision order during this period.
As part of his probation, Berry is required to undertake a comprehensive 26-day rehabilitation programme and attend up to 15 days of additional activities as directed by a supervising officer. He must maintain regular contact with his officer, seek permission before making any changes to his address, and refrain from committing any further offences during the suspension period. Failure to adhere to these conditions could result in the immediate activation of the custodial sentence, with no credit given for any time served on bail.
The court's decision reflects the gravity of the offences, which were deemed severe enough to warrant immediate custodial action. Nonetheless, the possibility of rehabilitation was considered significant enough to justify a suspended sentence, emphasizing the importance of monitoring Berry's conduct and ensuring compliance with the court's strict conditions.