LUKAS O’NEILL INDICTED FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES IN INKBERROW AND WORCESTER
| Red Rose Database
Inkberrow Sexual Abuser
In July 2019, a disturbing case involving Lukas O’Neill, a resident of Churchway Piece, Inkberrow, came to light through court proceedings at Worcester Crown Court. The case centered around O’Neill’s attempts to exploit young girls via social media platforms, specifically Instagram, in a series of predatory acts that shocked the local community and highlighted the dangers of online grooming.
O’Neill, aged 30 at the time, pleaded guilty to two counts of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. His actions involved deceptive online communication with two girls, aged 10 and 14, with the intent of obtaining explicit images and engaging in sexualized conversations. The court heard that O’Neill’s manipulative tactics included posing as an 11-year-old boy under the fictitious name ‘Brad Gower 11,’ even attaching a fabricated photograph of a young boy to his profile. This elaborate deception was aimed at convincing the 10-year-old girl to send him nude pictures.
The incident involving the younger girl took place on September 27, 2016. During their direct messaging exchange, O’Neill asked her age, to which she responded that she was 10 years old and a pupil in year six at primary school. Prosecutor Simon Phillips explained that O’Neill then requested a picture of her underwear. The girl refused, instead sending a picture of her school skirt. Despite her refusal, O’Neill persisted, asking her to send an intimate photograph. She again declined, but he continued to engage her by asking if she loved him. O’Neill responded affirmatively, claiming, “Yeah, because you’re cute.”
Feeling uncomfortable and overwhelmed, the girl told him she did not love him and that she had a boyfriend, which she used as a way to end the conversation. She later confided in her mother about the messages, expressing feelings of embarrassment and sadness. She believed she was communicating with a genuine 11-year-old boy, unaware of O’Neill’s true intentions and identity.
Legal proceedings revealed that O’Neill’s actions were considered highly sophisticated, particularly due to his use of a fake profile picture and fabricated identity. The court noted that the offense’s severity aligned with a starting point of five years’ imprisonment under sentencing guidelines.
In addition to the incident involving the 10-year-old girl, O’Neill engaged in grooming behaviors with a 14-year-old girl through social media. He sent her friend requests and messages, attempting to manipulate her. When she mentioned owning a pair of Calvin Klein underwear, he inappropriately inquired if they were thongs, further demonstrating his predatory intent.
Authorities responded to the case by executing a search warrant at O’Neill’s residence. During the investigation, police seized his laptops and discovered a category A indecent video depicting penetrative sexual activity involving a child, classified as the most serious category of such material. They also found 21 images categorized as C, which are considered less severe but still illegal.
O’Neill was arrested on June 2, 2017, and underwent three police interviews. During these sessions, he claimed to be experiencing voices in his head from September 2016 to October 2017. When questioned about the images on his devices, he chose to give no comment responses. His defense lawyer, Jason Patel, requested that his early guilty plea, previously indicated at a magistrates’ court hearing, be taken into account.
Judge Jim Tindal addressed the court, condemning O’Neill’s actions, especially given the vulnerability of his young victims. He emphasized the malicious intent behind O’Neill’s deception, noting that the defendant had targeted a girl only 10 years old, using elaborate lies to obtain images for sexual gratification. The judge acknowledged O’Neill’s autism diagnosis, which had been properly established, and his previously good character, describing him as a low risk. Nonetheless, the judge stated that a custodial sentence was necessary.
Ultimately, O’Neill was sentenced to two years in prison, suspended for two years, with an additional requirement of 50 days of rehabilitation activities. A sexual harm prevention order was imposed for five years, and he was ordered to sign the sex offender register for a decade. Furthermore, he was fined £500 to cover court costs, underscoring the seriousness of his offenses and the ongoing need for monitoring and prevention of further harm.
O’Neill, aged 30 at the time, pleaded guilty to two counts of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. His actions involved deceptive online communication with two girls, aged 10 and 14, with the intent of obtaining explicit images and engaging in sexualized conversations. The court heard that O’Neill’s manipulative tactics included posing as an 11-year-old boy under the fictitious name ‘Brad Gower 11,’ even attaching a fabricated photograph of a young boy to his profile. This elaborate deception was aimed at convincing the 10-year-old girl to send him nude pictures.
The incident involving the younger girl took place on September 27, 2016. During their direct messaging exchange, O’Neill asked her age, to which she responded that she was 10 years old and a pupil in year six at primary school. Prosecutor Simon Phillips explained that O’Neill then requested a picture of her underwear. The girl refused, instead sending a picture of her school skirt. Despite her refusal, O’Neill persisted, asking her to send an intimate photograph. She again declined, but he continued to engage her by asking if she loved him. O’Neill responded affirmatively, claiming, “Yeah, because you’re cute.”
Feeling uncomfortable and overwhelmed, the girl told him she did not love him and that she had a boyfriend, which she used as a way to end the conversation. She later confided in her mother about the messages, expressing feelings of embarrassment and sadness. She believed she was communicating with a genuine 11-year-old boy, unaware of O’Neill’s true intentions and identity.
Legal proceedings revealed that O’Neill’s actions were considered highly sophisticated, particularly due to his use of a fake profile picture and fabricated identity. The court noted that the offense’s severity aligned with a starting point of five years’ imprisonment under sentencing guidelines.
In addition to the incident involving the 10-year-old girl, O’Neill engaged in grooming behaviors with a 14-year-old girl through social media. He sent her friend requests and messages, attempting to manipulate her. When she mentioned owning a pair of Calvin Klein underwear, he inappropriately inquired if they were thongs, further demonstrating his predatory intent.
Authorities responded to the case by executing a search warrant at O’Neill’s residence. During the investigation, police seized his laptops and discovered a category A indecent video depicting penetrative sexual activity involving a child, classified as the most serious category of such material. They also found 21 images categorized as C, which are considered less severe but still illegal.
O’Neill was arrested on June 2, 2017, and underwent three police interviews. During these sessions, he claimed to be experiencing voices in his head from September 2016 to October 2017. When questioned about the images on his devices, he chose to give no comment responses. His defense lawyer, Jason Patel, requested that his early guilty plea, previously indicated at a magistrates’ court hearing, be taken into account.
Judge Jim Tindal addressed the court, condemning O’Neill’s actions, especially given the vulnerability of his young victims. He emphasized the malicious intent behind O’Neill’s deception, noting that the defendant had targeted a girl only 10 years old, using elaborate lies to obtain images for sexual gratification. The judge acknowledged O’Neill’s autism diagnosis, which had been properly established, and his previously good character, describing him as a low risk. Nonetheless, the judge stated that a custodial sentence was necessary.
Ultimately, O’Neill was sentenced to two years in prison, suspended for two years, with an additional requirement of 50 days of rehabilitation activities. A sexual harm prevention order was imposed for five years, and he was ordered to sign the sex offender register for a decade. Furthermore, he was fined £500 to cover court costs, underscoring the seriousness of his offenses and the ongoing need for monitoring and prevention of further harm.