August 2010 Sex offender jailed for being in room with young girl A 22-YEAR-old sex offender, banned from any contact with underage girls, was this week jailed for a total of 14 months for twice in the space of two days being in the same room as a young girl at a Golspie address. James Murphy, who appeared for sentencing at Dornoch Sheriff Court on Monday, had earlier admitted breaching the terms of a wide ranging Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) on 23rd February and again on 25th February this year at a home in Golspie. Procurator fiscal Roderick Urquhart explained to Monday’s court that Murphy had been made the subject of a SOPO following a conviction in the High Court in November 2005. The order banned him from remaining or residing in any home which was also occupied by young girls. He was also forbidden from approaching, speaking to or communicating with girls aged under 16. But Murphy, who earlier this year was living in the East Sutherland area – although his address was not disclosed in court – became friendly with a local teenage boy who had two young school-age sisters, Dornoch Sheriff Court heard on Monday. “His friendship with this boy caused concern to his supervising team and at a meeting it was decided to disclose the accused’s background to the girls’ parents to ensure Murphy was kept away from them,” said Mr Urquhart. “At about 4.15pm on the afternoon of Thursday, 25th February, a social worker and police inspector called at the home to see the mother. They were invited into the property and on entering the kitchen found the accused sitting there along with a number of teenagers, one of them being an underage girl. “The accused was at that point arrested and, following an investigation and questioning, it became apparent that the accused had also two days earlier been present in the house in the company of the other sister.” The fiscal added: “On each occasion, there were other people there and it is not suggested this is a sexual act, it is just a breach of the order.” Fiscal Mr Urquhart said Murphy had been in custody in relation to the breach since 26th February. Defence agent Aileen McInnes said her client had become friendly with the brother of the two girls while both were living in homeless accommodation. She said that on February 22nd, Murphy went to visit his friend after learning that he was alone in his mother’s house in Golspie. The lawyer continued: “While he was there, one of his friend’s sisters got off the school bus and went into the kitchen where the two men were sitting. There was a fleeting conversation before the girl went into her bedroom and that was the extent of the contact. “My client’s difficulty is that he could be anywhere and run into trouble. When he arrived at the house there was no problem and presumably, had the girl arrived from school and gone straight into another room, then there would have been no difficulty. “He had asked his friend whether he was alone and at the time the friend was, because his sister was not at home.” Ms McInnes said that on 25th February Murphy again arrived at the house in question along with his friend, but refused to go inside because he knew one of the girls was present. “He eventually went inside on the insistence of his friend’s mother, because it was raining,” said the lawyer. “She then was going to supply food. Yes, my client knew he should not have been there, but he did offer resistance to going inside. That was the occasion when police arrived at the house.” Ms McInnes said there was a distinction to be drawn between the circumstances relating to Murphy’s breach of the SOPO and the circumstances relating to the conviction for which he was made the subject of the order. “Here there is no indication of any sexual impropriety,” she said. “There was no alcohol or anything else taken but he was for a brief time in the company of girls aged under 16, but not alone with them, and on the second occasion the girl’s mother was also present, although she was unaware of his background.” Ms McInnes pointed out that a psychologist’s report on her client deemed him to be at a low risk of re-offending sexually but at a high risk of breaching the SOPO. “Clearly the difficulty that is highlighted is that Mr Murphy’s problem-solving skills appear to be lacking to some degree,” she said. “Of course, he knows full well that when the situation arose, he should have gone but clearly in terms of the order he is always going to find himself in a similar situation.” Sheriff David Sutherland backdated the prison sentence to 26th February when Murphy was taken into custody. Sexual Prevention Offences Orders are part of a battery of new powers introduced in 2004 under the Sexual Offences Act. At the time, civil rights campaigners claimed the breadth of the order was “ridiculous” and said offenders would be unable to walk along a road without running the risk of meeting a child.