MICHAEL GAGE FROM BOURNEMOUTH ESCAPES WORK BAN DESPITE SEX OFFENDER STATUS

In March 2005, a troubling case emerged involving Michael Gage, a 43-year-old youth leader residing on Strouden Avenue in Bournemouth. Gage had previously admitted to indecently touching a teenage boy, a revelation that sparked widespread concern and outrage among child protection advocates. Despite his admission, Gage was granted permission by a judge to continue working with young people, a decision that has ignited fierce criticism from prominent children's charities.

Gage is currently registered as a sex offender for a period of five years, following his conviction. At Bournemouth Crown Court, he was sentenced to a three-year community rehabilitation order, which includes participation in an 85-day sex offenders' treatment program. The court proceedings revealed that Gage had pleaded guilty last month to one count of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault. The incidents involved Gage befriending his victim and engaging in indecent touching on two separate occasions. It was clarified that these acts did not occur within the premises of the youth club where Gage was involved, and notably, he has no prior criminal convictions.

During the hearing, the court reviewed various reports, including probation and medical assessments, along with a letter from Gage himself and nine character references. Despite the serious nature of his offenses, Judge John Beashel expressed the view that Gage did not pose a current danger to children or teenagers. Based on his assessment, the judge decided against imposing restrictions that would prevent Gage from working with minors in the future.

Following the sentencing, Claude Knights, who serves as the training manager for Kidscape—a charity dedicated to preventing bullying and child abuse—voiced her deep concern and disapproval. She described the judge’s decision as “very, very worried,” emphasizing that it was “ludicrous” and “dangerous.” Knights pointed out that Gage’s inclusion on the sex offenders’ register inherently marked him as a potential threat. She expressed alarm at the prospect of him working in environments where children are present, warning that such a situation could create a “honeypot” for potential victims. Knights questioned whether parents across the country would feel comfortable with such arrangements, underscoring the risk involved.

She further stated that any organization employing Gage to work with children would be taking an unacceptable risk, and highlighted the importance of prioritizing children’s safety above all else. Knights argued that the primary responsibility must be to protect children from further harm, rather than to accommodate the offender’s rehabilitation at the expense of public safety.

The court also heard that Gage’s actions were characterized as “minor” assaults, and that his psychological difficulties, which are currently being addressed, may have contributed to his behavior. His defense lawyer, William Mousley, emphasized Gage’s exemplary character and long-standing service to the local community. Mousley noted that those who knew Gage and wrote letters to the court did not express any concerns about his tendencies towards indecency. He also pointed out that Gage had never previously been involved in any criminal activity and that he accepted full responsibility for his actions.

Judge Beashel, in his sentencing remarks, stated that he had considered the possibility of banning Gage from working with children or minors but ultimately decided against it. The judge expressed confidence that, based on the evidence presented, Gage did not currently pose a threat to young people. His decision has sparked debate about the balance between rehabilitation and public safety, especially in cases involving individuals with a history of sexual offenses against minors.