JULIAN FARRELL FROM BRADFORD AND SHIPLEY FACES SEX OFFENCE TRIAL OVER BREACHES AND GROOMING CASES

In July 2013, Julian Farrell, a man with ties to Bradford and Shipley, found himself at the center of serious legal proceedings related to his past convictions and alleged breaches of court orders. Farrell, aged 52, was accused of violating a sexual offences prevention order that had been imposed on him by Bradford Crown Court in 2007. This order was originally issued following his conviction for possessing indecent images of children and inciting sexual activity with a minor, for which he was sentenced to five and a half years in prison.

Farrell appeared in court to face six charges alleging breaches of this court order. He pleaded not guilty to all allegations, which included using the internet for purposes other than work, operating a private internet account, possessing a photograph or pseudo-image of a child without parental consent, and viewing or downloading images of children. Additionally, he was accused of possessing computer software or storage media containing images of young children and accessing websites related to minors under 16. The defendant, who resides on Abcot Street in Bradford’s Barkerend area, was granted bail and is scheduled for trial in January.

Farrell’s criminal history dates back to February 2007, when he was jailed for grooming a young girl over the internet. At that time, he was a former furniture store manager living in Shipley’s Nab Wood Drive. His initial arrest followed the discovery of a large collection of child pornography on his computer. During the investigation, Farrell contacted a 13-year-old girl from Cheltenham via an online chat room. He pretended to be a teenage boy, sending her a photograph of himself to establish trust. The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was persuaded to undress while Farrell watched from his home in Shipley.

Judge Jonathan Durham Hall QC sentenced Farrell to five and a half years in prison after he admitted to multiple offences, including possessing and distributing indecent images of children and causing a minor to engage in sexual activity. The judge described Farrell’s actions as stemming from a “sordid and perverted interest” in children under 13, highlighting that Farrell had sought out and associated with like-minded individuals online, amassing over 3,000 images of child abuse, both still and moving images.

Prosecutor Richard Hebbert revealed that Farrell was first arrested in August 2005 following a tip-off from the FBI in the United States regarding his distribution of child pornography. An examination of Farrell’s computer uncovered 3,077 images depicting severe child abuse. Further investigations showed that Farrell had been actively distributing some of these images, including a notorious compilation. During the course of the inquiry, Farrell acquired new computer equipment, which led to further police searches in West Yorkshire, prompted by colleagues in Gloucestershire. In March of the previous year, officers raided his home, seized his computer, and recovered letters and a collection of girls’ underwear.

It was also revealed that Farrell had first contacted the Cheltenham girl in 2004 when she was just 12 years old. Their relationship escalated in late 2005, after Farrell deceived her by sending a photograph of a much younger boy and claiming to be in his late teens or early twenties. As their online interactions continued, Farrell pressured her to use her webcam, eventually persuading her to remove her clothes while he watched. The girl initially started by removing her top but was later persuaded to strip completely naked. Farrell admitted to officers that he derived sexual gratification from watching her on the webcam.

During the court proceedings, Farrell’s defense lawyer, Andrew Lees, explained that Farrell had given up his job to care for his parents, both of whom had died in 2005. He also noted that Farrell had been drinking heavily at the time of the offences and emphasized that he had no prior convictions, describing his behavior as uncharacteristic and shameful.

Judge Durham Hall imposed a sexual offences prevention order upon Farrell, which restricts his contact with children and prohibits him from working with minors for life. He is also required to register as a sex offender with police for the remainder of his life. The judge condemned Farrell’s continued acquisition of computer equipment after his initial arrest, describing it as evidence of his “wickedness.” He stated, “In October 2005, you were involved in the grooming, seduction, and corruption of a 13-year-old girl from Cheltenham. Instead of losing contact, you persuaded her to expose herself via her webcam.” The girl was scheduled to give evidence via video link, but Farrell’s late guilty plea spared her from the trauma of a trial, according to the judge.