JON DIXON ESCAPES JAIL AFTER GROOMING AND ABUSING 11-YEAR-OLD GIRL IN MANCHESTER

In May 2008, a case involving Jon Dixon, who groomed and molested an 11-year-old girl, drew significant controversy after he was sentenced to a community order instead of prison. The judge, Robert Atherton, caused outrage by stating that the victim had 'welcomed' sexual activity.

Judge Atherton remarked during the hearing on Thursday that the girl had 'invited the attack' because she possessed a 'sexual awareness' that would even embarrass a person twice her age. He dismissed an assessment by the probation service which described Dixon as 'manipulative and predatory' and identified him as a 'high risk of serious harm to children.'

Dixon, 20, exited Manchester Crown Court enthusiastically, punching the air, while the girl's mother was seen sobbing. The judge sentenced him to a community order, expressing concern that prison would not provide the treatment he needed, given the record population in UK prisons.

Earlier, the court referenced a psychologist's report which described Dixon as immature and in need of help, rather than a high threat to children.

Many children's charities voiced their shock and condemnation of the sentence, with Michele Elliott from Kidscape accusing the judge of 'partially blaming' the victim and calling for him to be removed from cases involving child abuse. The victim’s family declined to comment publicly, overwhelmed by emotion.

Court proceedings revealed that Dixon and the girl met via a chatroom called Flirtomatic in February of the previous year. Initially, the girl falsely claimed to be 20 years old. The site allowed users to upload images, rate others on attractiveness, and send 'flirt icons' to initiate conversations.

Over a two-week period, Dixon and the girl exchanged approximately 900 sexually explicit text messages. When she disclosed her real age of 11—later claiming to be 12—Dixon appeared 'shocked' but continued to pursue her, sending more sexual texts, emails, and requesting photos.

Prosecutor Jonathan Dickinson stated, 'It was clear the defendant’s attitude and intentions toward her had not changed despite her saying she was only 12.' He added that Dixon asked her to lie to her parents so they could meet.

Dixon met the girl during her school lunch break on March 15, 2007, and committed a sexual assault. Two days later, they met again, and Dixon attempted to rape her in an alleyway, but 'physical difficulties' prevented penetration.

He was arrested after a family friend of the girl contacted her parents following a conversation with the girl. Dixon claimed to police he had only kissed the girl at her request but later pleaded guilty to meeting a child following grooming, sexual assault, and attempted rape.

During sentencing, the girl’s mother was visibly upset, and a statement from her father was read: 'He was 19 and she was 11, which in my mind is wrong. He was the adult in this; he must know the difference between right and wrong. He could have walked away.'

The judge sentenced Dixon to a three-year community order, emphasizing that Dixon had not intentionally sought a child online. He commented, 'The fact is, she expresses herself in relation to sexual matters with an awareness which would make many twice her age blush, and which I hope is rare for an 11-year-old.'

He questioned whether prison was appropriate or if psychological treatment in the community would better serve public interest, also ordering Dixon to sign the Sexual Offenders Register for five years.

Dixon's release outside court was met with disappointment from the girl’s father, who declined to comment further due to emotion. Michele Elliott of Kidscape criticized the decision, asserting, 'This judge does not seem to understand that 11-year-old girls cannot give informed consent. She was groomed. The only reason she 'welcomed' sexual activity was because he groomed her to do so. If Dixon harms another child, this judge bears part of the responsibility. To ignore probation advice is the act of a Neanderthal.'

Natalie Cronin, NSPCC Head of Policy, stated that while the charity typically does not comment on individual cases, 'The severity of the sentence should reflect the severity of the crime. It is never acceptable for an adult to sexually abuse a child and the law is clear about this.'