JEFFREY BINKS FROM DARLINGTON FAILS TO LIFT CHILD CONTACT RESTRICTIONS
In November 2017, a significant legal decision was made concerning Jeffrey Binks, a man from Darlington with a troubling history related to child exploitation.Binks, who had previously admitted to downloading over 3,000 indecent images, sought to have the restrictions on his contact with children eased or removed entirely.
However, his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, as authorities and the court expressed serious concerns about his ongoing risk to children.
Jeffrey Binks, aged 66 at the time, had been subject to a sexual offences prevention order since 2010.
This order was initially imposed after he received a six-month jail sentence, suspended for two months, in July of that year.
The sentence was a consequence of his possession and creation of a staggering 3,337 images and video clips depicting indecent material involving children.
Despite this, Binks applied to vary the order, hoping to relax the restrictions that limited his interactions with minors.
The court heard that Binks had taken steps that raised alarm bells.
Notably, he had befriended a family with a young child without disclosing his criminal history or the existence of the order.
This act of deception was viewed as highly concerning by the authorities.
Furthermore, Binks had pleaded guilty to 16 charges related to the creation of indecent images of children, along with one charge of possession.
In a disturbing development, he also sent a birthday card to the child, which led to him being cautioned by police in November of the previous year.
James Kemp, representing the police, emphasized that Binks had demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty.
He pointed out that Binks had signed a statement as recently as June, falsely claiming that he had no issues complying with the existing order.
Kemp argued that Binks had been underhanded and manipulative, having befriended the child's parents with the apparent intent of gaining access to the child.
The police believed that Binks had moved beyond merely viewing indecent images and was actively seeking direct contact with children.
On the other side, Binks’s legal representative, Amrit Jandoo, argued that the restrictions had become overly oppressive, interfering with Binks’s daily life.
The terms of the order prohibited him from having any contact or communication with children unless it was accidental or unavoidable, and only with the consent of a parent or guardian who was aware of his convictions and approved of the contact through local social services.
During the hearing, Judge Simon Bourne-Arton, the Recorder of Middlesbrough, acknowledged the arguments presented by Jandoo but ultimately sided with the police.
He expressed that the police’s concerns were justified, given Binks’s demonstrated interest in children and his previous contacts with a child, which he deemed unhealthy.
The judge reaffirmed that the restrictions on Binks’s contact with children would remain in place, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding minors from potential harm posed by individuals with such a history.
