MICHAEL FREEGROVE FROM HUNGERFORD BUSTED FOR REOFFENDING DESPITE SEX OFFENDER ORDER

On Thursday, December 7, at Reading Magistrates’ Court, Michael Andrew Freegrove, a resident of Kennedy Meadow in Hungerford, faced serious allegations related to his breach of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO).

Freegrove, aged 61, had previously been convicted of possessing and creating indecent images of children in 2014, which led to the imposition of the SOPO. This court order explicitly prohibited him from accessing the internet on any device without appropriate protective software, except in a strictly controlled business environment with additional security measures. Despite these restrictions, the court was informed that Freegrove had deliberately violated the terms of his order.

Prosecutor Ben May outlined that police discovered Freegrove had used a tablet, purchased by his former partner, to access the internet on two separate occasions. The first instance was justified by Freegrove as being for car insurance purposes. However, he was unable to recall the reason for the second access. When questioned by authorities, Freegrove claimed he was fully aware of the restrictions but believed he would not be caught, indicating a conscious decision to breach the order.

It was established that Freegrove had breached the SOPO between January 1 and July 24 of the previous year. A second charge, related to owning a Galaxy Tablet and accessing the internet without notifying police authorities during 2015, was not pursued in court. Additionally, it was revealed that Freegrove had been cautioned earlier in February for failing to comply with notification requirements related to a specific address, which was part of his ongoing monitoring as a registered sex offender.

Defence lawyer Joanna Benn stated that Freegrove had completed a three-year community order and a sex offender treatment program without further breaches. She emphasized that the initial use of the tablet was for arranging car insurance and that the second incident was of a similar low-level nature. Benn also highlighted that Freegrove’s fiancée was present in court to support him, and she described the breaches as “very low level.”

Following deliberation, magistrates imposed a fine of £120 on Freegrove, along with an order to pay £85 in costs and a statutory victim surcharge of £30. The court’s decision reflected the seriousness of breaching a court order designed to protect children from exploitation and abuse, despite the defendant’s claims of remorse and compliance in recent months.