LEE ROGERS SENTENCED IN TEESSIDE FOR SEX OFFENCES AND BREACH OF ORDER
In September 2017, a judge stated that Lee Rogers' difficult childhood made his turn to crime 'almost inevitable.' Rogers faced court again after attempting to hide and dismantle a phone used for viewing inappropriate 'stories' online.Judge Neil Davey QC remarked, 'It is plain that Mr Rogers had an appalling childhood through no fault of his own which was inevitably going to leave him damaged,' adding, 'Anybody who suffered as you did as a child was almost inevitably, as years go by, going to commit criminal offences.' Teesside Crown Court heard that Rogers, 21, had a history of criminal activity dating back to 2007, including sexual assault, and more recently, possession of indecent images of children, prohibited content, and extreme pornography.
His latest violation involved breaching a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO) that was meant to protect the public.
This five-year order required him to make internet devices like smartphones available for inspection and prohibited him from deleting his internet history.
The court was told Rogers attempted to deceive a visiting detective by handing over a 'dummy phone' lacking internet access on February 28.
He denied having any other devices, but staff at his Middlesbrough Road hostel in South Bank expressed concerns, prompting police to search his rooms without success.
Prosecutor Harry Hadfield explained that Rogers then admitted to possessing another phone used to access 'incest and bestiality stories.' He refused police access, dismantled the phone, and hid the parts, including a SIM card that was never recovered.
Rogers claimed he bought the phone days earlier and downloaded illicit images before looking at material he knew he shouldn’t, sometimes for as long as seven hours at a time, which he found arousing.
Panicked upon learning police would check, he deleted his internet history and destroyed the phone, denying he downloaded any images involving children.
Rogers, currently residing on Hartington Road, Stockton, admitted to breaching the SOPO.
He had prior breaches, including a period in a young offenders' institution for downloading images of children.
Defense lawyer Julian Gaskin described Rogers as an immature young man who had been in the criminal justice system since age 13 and was now beginning to understand the wider world and recognized he needed help.
Gaskin added, 'He tells me repeatedly he doesn’t want to be like this.
He is prepared to engage and speak to people,' and noted Rogers had cooperated fully, pleaded guilty early, and explained his actions.
Judge Davey emphasized that Rogers’ recent offending did not target children directly; Rogers voluntarily handed over his phone to police and exhibited signs of maturity and insight.
The judge considered Rogers’ remand in custody since arrest as an appropriate measure.
He commented on Rogers’ positive progress and the benefit of targeted support from the Probation Service, which could reduce the chance of re-offending.
Addressing prison as a sentencing option, the judge said, 'It would simply be to kick the can of the problem down the road.' Instead, he imposed a one-year prison sentence, suspended for two years, coupled with rehabilitation activities and participation in a sex offenders’ treatment program.
