JOHN WILLIAMS OF KEMPSTON WINS APPEAL ALLOWING HIM ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN LUTON
| Red Rose Database
Kempston Child Sexual Abuser
In February 2014, John Williams, a man from Viking Grove, Kempston, who was convicted of possessing indecent images of children, successfully appealed a court order that restricted his contact with minors. Williams had previously received a three-year community order at Luton Crown Court in October of the previous year after admitting to having such images on his computer.
He was also mandated to complete an internet sex offenders’ treatment program and was subject to a sexual offences prevention order (Sopo). The terms of this order prohibited him from having any contact with children and allowed police to inspect his computer equipment without prior notice.
Williams challenged these conditions at London's Criminal Appeal Court, with his legal team claiming that the restrictions were "too oppressive." The court's judges agreed to overturn one aspect of the order, specifically the ban on contact with children, ruling that it was "too wide."
However, the judges affirmed the authority of police to conduct unannounced checks on his computer at any time, believing this would "concentrate his mind" on his rehabilitation and encourage compliance with the Sopo’s conditions.
The court’s investigation revealed that police searched Williams’s home in June 2011, seizing his computer, which was later found to contain 2,361 indecent images of children. Judge David Griffith Jones QC noted that Williams had no prior convictions, was described by a probation officer as remorseful, and was willing to engage in psychiatric therapy.
Williams’s legal representatives argued that both terms of his Sopo were excessively broad and restrictive. They requested that he be allowed to contact children and that police could only visit him during designated hours. In response, Judge Griffith Jones stated that there was "no indication whatsoever" from psychiatric evaluations that Williams posed a risk of offending against children.
Despite this, the judge upheld the condition permitting police to inspect his computer at any time. He was supported by Lord Justice Fulford and Mr Justice Griffith Williams, who added: "Having given this careful consideration, we conclude that this measure is both necessary and proportionate. It seems to us that, where someone has downloaded material in the privacy of their own home, it thwarts the protection this provision creates to say police can only attend or seek to attend within certain hours. The fact he will know that the police can inspect his computer equipment at any time will concentrate his mind to further reinforce his intention to obey the terms of this order."
He was also mandated to complete an internet sex offenders’ treatment program and was subject to a sexual offences prevention order (Sopo). The terms of this order prohibited him from having any contact with children and allowed police to inspect his computer equipment without prior notice.
Williams challenged these conditions at London's Criminal Appeal Court, with his legal team claiming that the restrictions were "too oppressive." The court's judges agreed to overturn one aspect of the order, specifically the ban on contact with children, ruling that it was "too wide."
However, the judges affirmed the authority of police to conduct unannounced checks on his computer at any time, believing this would "concentrate his mind" on his rehabilitation and encourage compliance with the Sopo’s conditions.
The court’s investigation revealed that police searched Williams’s home in June 2011, seizing his computer, which was later found to contain 2,361 indecent images of children. Judge David Griffith Jones QC noted that Williams had no prior convictions, was described by a probation officer as remorseful, and was willing to engage in psychiatric therapy.
Williams’s legal representatives argued that both terms of his Sopo were excessively broad and restrictive. They requested that he be allowed to contact children and that police could only visit him during designated hours. In response, Judge Griffith Jones stated that there was "no indication whatsoever" from psychiatric evaluations that Williams posed a risk of offending against children.
Despite this, the judge upheld the condition permitting police to inspect his computer at any time. He was supported by Lord Justice Fulford and Mr Justice Griffith Williams, who added: "Having given this careful consideration, we conclude that this measure is both necessary and proportionate. It seems to us that, where someone has downloaded material in the privacy of their own home, it thwarts the protection this provision creates to say police can only attend or seek to attend within certain hours. The fact he will know that the police can inspect his computer equipment at any time will concentrate his mind to further reinforce his intention to obey the terms of this order."