MARK MENGHAM FROM TOTTON ESCAPES JAIL AFTER SEXUAL MESSAGE SCANDAL WITH 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL

In June 2022, a serious case involving a 60-year-old man from Totton, Mark Anthony Mengham, came to light when he was found guilty of engaging in inappropriate and sexual communications with a minor. Despite the gravity of his actions, Mengham was handed a sentence that included a suspended prison term, sparing him immediate incarceration.

Mark Mengham, who resides on Alfred Close in Totton, was convicted of multiple offences related to his inappropriate online interactions with a girl he believed to be only 13 years old. The court proceedings revealed that Mengham exchanged numerous messages of a highly sexual nature with the minor between December 2020 and January 2021. Throughout this period, the girl repeatedly insisted she was just 13, yet Mengham continued to engage with her, disregarding her age and the clear warning signs.

Prosecutor Miss Aspinall-Miles detailed how Mengham not only asked the girl for explicit photographs but also sent a video of himself pleasuring himself, further demonstrating his predatory behaviour. The court was told that during one exchange, when the decoy profile claimed her mother was nearby, Mengham instructed her to delete any messages to avoid detection, highlighting his awareness of the illicit nature of his actions.

Following his arrest on January 15, 2021, Mengham faced multiple charges, including attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, attempting to incite a female under 13 to partake in non-penetrative sexual acts, and attempting to cause a child aged 13 to 15 to view sexual images. His appearance at Southampton Crown Court resulted in a conviction that carried significant legal consequences.

In addition to the nine-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, Mengham was ordered to register as a sex offender for five years. He was also subjected to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for the same duration and mandated to complete 40 days of rehabilitation activities aimed at addressing his behaviour. The court further imposed a victim surcharge and ordered him to pay court costs, emphasizing the seriousness of his offences and the need for ongoing monitoring and intervention.