JAMES SMITH FROM WAKEFIELD SENTENCED TO CURFEW FOR SEX OFFENCES INVOLVING YOUNG GIRLS

In a recent court ruling in Wakefield, James Smith, a 55-year-old resident of Gillsike House, Thornbury Road, was found guilty of serious sexual misconduct involving two young girls. The offences, which took place last June, centered around Smith inciting the children to commit acts of gross indecency. Despite the gravity of the charges, Smith narrowly avoided a custodial sentence but was subjected to a strict curfew order designed to restrict his movements during critical hours.

Following a detailed trial that lasted an entire day, Smith was convicted of two counts of inciting gross indecency. The court proceedings included testimonies from child witnesses, who had to give evidence via video link due to the sensitive nature of the case. During the trial, the prosecution decided to withdraw an additional charge alleging that Smith had threatened one of the witnesses the day after the trial concluded.

In sentencing this week, magistrate Barry Atkinson emphasized the seriousness of the offences, stating, “These were two very serious offences. We are dealing with two offences of inciting two children to commit an act of gross indecency, and the guidelines for this sentence suggest custody, but we have waived that option.”

As part of his punishment, Smith was ordered to register as a sex offender for a period of five years. Additionally, he was mandated to pay each of his victims £50 in compensation, complete 200 hours of community service, and cover court costs amounting to £350. The court also imposed a six-month curfew from 2 pm to 6 pm, coinciding with the time children typically leave school, to ensure he remains indoors during these vulnerable hours.

Defence lawyer Jon Heath highlighted that Smith has no prior convictions and argued that the curfew would allow him to continue caring for his disabled wife. However, the magistrate underscored the severity of the offences, indicating that the measures are necessary to protect the community.

A spokesperson from the Home Office commented on the case, stating, “Protecting the public from dangerous offenders is of the highest priority to the Government, and Sex Offender Orders are one of a number of measures that have been introduced to help manage the risks posed by sex offenders. The orders can prohibit offenders from doing certain things which indicate they might be repeating a pattern of behaviour which previously led to sexual offending, such as going to children’s playgrounds.”