JAMIE BIRCH'S CRIMINAL OFFENSES IN GRANTHAM: SEX OFFENDER FINED FOR FAILURE TO REGISTER
| Red Rose Database
Grantham Child Sexual Abuser
In December 2014, a serious case of non-compliance involving a convicted sex offender from Grantham came to light, highlighting ongoing issues with adherence to legal restrictions and registration requirements. Jamie Birch, aged 44 and residing on Grantley Street in Grantham, has a criminal record that dates back to 2010 when he was convicted of possessing indecent images of children. As part of his sentence and legal obligations, Birch was placed on the sex offenders register, which mandated him to participate in an annual notification process to keep authorities informed of his current details.
According to the law, Birch was required to visit the Grantham police station each year to register his details. However, on October 6, officers from the local police station observed that Birch had not made his scheduled registration. Recognizing the importance of compliance, the police management officer attempted to contact Birch to remind him of his obligation. Multiple voicemails were left for him, but it was not until October 14 that officers managed to establish communication with him.
When Birch finally attended the police station voluntarily, he explained that he had simply forgotten the registration was due in October. He believed, mistakenly, that his next registration was scheduled for November, which led to the oversight. During the subsequent legal proceedings, Birch pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to comply with the notification requirements. Rob Arthur, representing the prosecution, explained that part of the confusion stemmed from Birch’s previous registration in October 2013, which was done early, causing some offenders to mistakenly believe their next registration was due later in the year.
Further complicating the situation was the fact that Birch had missed the initial phone calls from police because his mobile phone had been damaged—specifically, it was run over by a forklift truck, rendering it unusable at the time. This incident contributed to the communication breakdown and the subsequent failure to meet the registration deadline.
In sentencing, Birch was fined £320 for his failure to comply. Additionally, he was ordered to pay prosecution costs amounting to £85 and a victim surcharge of £32. The case underscores the ongoing challenges law enforcement faces in ensuring that registered sex offenders adhere to their legal obligations, especially when simple oversights or misunderstandings occur.
According to the law, Birch was required to visit the Grantham police station each year to register his details. However, on October 6, officers from the local police station observed that Birch had not made his scheduled registration. Recognizing the importance of compliance, the police management officer attempted to contact Birch to remind him of his obligation. Multiple voicemails were left for him, but it was not until October 14 that officers managed to establish communication with him.
When Birch finally attended the police station voluntarily, he explained that he had simply forgotten the registration was due in October. He believed, mistakenly, that his next registration was scheduled for November, which led to the oversight. During the subsequent legal proceedings, Birch pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to comply with the notification requirements. Rob Arthur, representing the prosecution, explained that part of the confusion stemmed from Birch’s previous registration in October 2013, which was done early, causing some offenders to mistakenly believe their next registration was due later in the year.
Further complicating the situation was the fact that Birch had missed the initial phone calls from police because his mobile phone had been damaged—specifically, it was run over by a forklift truck, rendering it unusable at the time. This incident contributed to the communication breakdown and the subsequent failure to meet the registration deadline.
In sentencing, Birch was fined £320 for his failure to comply. Additionally, he was ordered to pay prosecution costs amounting to £85 and a victim surcharge of £32. The case underscores the ongoing challenges law enforcement faces in ensuring that registered sex offenders adhere to their legal obligations, especially when simple oversights or misunderstandings occur.