JOHN LOCKE FROM HARTLEPOOL AND MIDDLESBROUGH JAILED FOR REPEATED SEX OFFENCES AND ORDER BREACHES

In a series of disturbing incidents spanning over two years, John Locke, a pensioner with connections to Hartlepool and Middlesbrough, has been repeatedly found guilty of breaching court orders designed to protect the public from his known sexual offending behavior.

On April 30, 2014, at Teesside Crown Court, Locke, aged 70, faced sentencing after a troubling incident in Middlesbrough. The court heard that around 10 pm on March 17, Locke approached a residence where a four-year-old boy was living with his mother. According to the prosecution, Locke knocked on the window and then opened the door of the home, claiming he was cold and lost. He asked the boy’s mother to let him inside, but she refused multiple times. Eventually, some passers-by intervened, removing Locke from the property.

Witnesses informed the woman that Locke was a known sex offender, which heightened her concern. She later recounted her fears in a statement, expressing her alarm that Locke had previously seen her with her son and appeared to have been watching them. She admitted she was initially tempted to let him in out of sympathy but ultimately decided against it due to her suspicions and fear.

Locke’s criminal history includes a conviction for indecently assaulting a 14-year-old boy. He had been subject to a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO), which he had repeatedly breached over the years. The court was told that Locke had been released from prison on January 10 of that year, but his pattern of behavior indicated a high risk of reoffending. A report described him as “very depressing,” highlighting his repeated failures to comply with restrictions.

During the hearing, Andrew Turton, representing Locke, acknowledged the seriousness of the breaches. He explained that Locke, who admitted to the latest violation, had been out of prison longer than usual—two months—compared to previous releases where he returned to custody within days. Despite this, Turton conceded that another custodial sentence was unavoidable, and the only question was its length.

Judge Simon Bourne-Arton, the Recorder of Middlesbrough, did not hold back in criticizing Locke’s persistent violations. He emphasized that Locke was well aware of the conditions of his order and that more stringent measures were necessary. Consequently, Locke was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Earlier incidents also highlight Locke’s troubling history. In April 2012, he was jailed for tricking his way into an elderly care home, Loxley Chase in The Crescent, Middlesbrough, just days after narrowly avoiding prison for breaching a similar order. At that time, Locke, then 68, falsely claimed to a man he met on the street that he was lost and lived at a care home. He was taken to Loxley Chase, where staff placed him in the dining area while they investigated his identity. However, Locke managed to wander around the complex, claiming he needed to use the toilet.

Locke’s behavior was in violation of a strict SOPO issued in June 2010, which prohibited him from loitering near care homes, nursing homes, and sheltered housing complexes. His criminal record includes a 2004 extended sentence for indecent assault on a boy, and he has previously failed to comply with sex offender registration requirements. Despite these restrictions, Locke has repeatedly breached them, most recently on December 27 of the previous year.

His breaches have often involved approaching children or loitering near vulnerable locations. Less than three weeks before the 2012 incident, Locke was spared immediate imprisonment after approaching children in Hartlepool. Instead, he was given a community order with supervision, with his barrister citing memory loss and forgetfulness as mitigating factors. The court was told that Locke’s mental state contributed to his breaches, which were described as technical rather than malicious.

Jim Withyman, Locke’s solicitor, characterized him as “a very unusual individual” and urged the court to consider a suspended sentence to allow him to receive community support. He argued that if Locke had been actively interfering with children, the situation would be far more serious. The court acknowledged the pattern of behavior and the risks involved, leading to Locke’s imprisonment for 12 months in that case.

Judge Armstrong concluded by emphasizing the ongoing danger Locke posed, noting that the risk of further offending and harm to children remained significant. His repeated violations and failure to adhere to court orders underscore the need for strict custodial measures to protect the community from this persistent offender.