MICHAEL WHITE FROM CANTERBURY INVOLVED IN SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH 15-YEAR-OLD GIRL
| Red Rose Database
Canterbury Child Sexual Abuser
In January 2013, a serious case involving a Canterbury-based mathematics teacher, Michael White, came to light, revealing disturbing details of his inappropriate conduct towards a minor. White, aged 33 and residing on Godwin Road in Canterbury, was found to have engaged in a troubling and secretive relationship with a 15-year-old girl, which included exchanging sexually explicit messages and meeting in person for intimate encounters.
White’s misconduct came to the attention of authorities after a concerned friend alerted the police about the nature of his interactions with the young girl. Following this tip-off, law enforcement officials swiftly acted to investigate the allegations. They confiscated White’s computer and mobile phone, uncovering a series of highly sexualized messages exchanged via Facebook, along with a photograph of the naked girl that White had sent through the social media platform.
During the court proceedings at Canterbury Crown Court, the prosecution, led by Donna East, outlined the gravity of White’s actions. Although she did not disclose the exact content of the messages in court, she emphasized that they were extremely sexualized. White admitted to causing a child to engage in sexual activity and to making an indecent photograph of the girl.
In his police interview on July 15, White confirmed that he had been in contact with the girl and had shared his email address, which he claimed he provided to many people. He admitted to meeting her on July 7, during which they hugged in secret, though he denied kissing her. However, he later acknowledged that he had kissed the top of her head. When questioned about the nature of their relationship, White described it as “merely making out a fantasy,” attempting to downplay the seriousness of his actions.
White’s defense lawyer, Thomas Restell, expressed remorse and highlighted his client’s lack of inner strength, acknowledging that White’s actions had led to a fall from grace. Restell pointed out that White recognized his previously unblemished career had been tarnished and that he should have deleted the explicit photograph but failed to do so. The lawyer also noted the personal consequences White faced, including the breakdown of his marriage and his wife relocating to another county with their daughter. White had already resigned from his teaching position and was seeking a new career path.
Judge Heather Norton addressed the court, condemning White’s conduct and emphasizing the breach of trust involved. She stated, “You have heaped shame upon yourself and those around you. The distortions in your thinking must be addressed. In my view, you have shown a breathtaking lack of insight which was not just a slippage of standards. There was a serious breach of trust which you knew was wholly wrong.”
As a result, White was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two years. He was also placed under a two-year supervision order, disqualified from working with individuals under 18, and required to register as a sex offender. The case underscores the serious consequences of inappropriate conduct by individuals entrusted with positions of authority and the importance of safeguarding minors from exploitation.
White’s misconduct came to the attention of authorities after a concerned friend alerted the police about the nature of his interactions with the young girl. Following this tip-off, law enforcement officials swiftly acted to investigate the allegations. They confiscated White’s computer and mobile phone, uncovering a series of highly sexualized messages exchanged via Facebook, along with a photograph of the naked girl that White had sent through the social media platform.
During the court proceedings at Canterbury Crown Court, the prosecution, led by Donna East, outlined the gravity of White’s actions. Although she did not disclose the exact content of the messages in court, she emphasized that they were extremely sexualized. White admitted to causing a child to engage in sexual activity and to making an indecent photograph of the girl.
In his police interview on July 15, White confirmed that he had been in contact with the girl and had shared his email address, which he claimed he provided to many people. He admitted to meeting her on July 7, during which they hugged in secret, though he denied kissing her. However, he later acknowledged that he had kissed the top of her head. When questioned about the nature of their relationship, White described it as “merely making out a fantasy,” attempting to downplay the seriousness of his actions.
White’s defense lawyer, Thomas Restell, expressed remorse and highlighted his client’s lack of inner strength, acknowledging that White’s actions had led to a fall from grace. Restell pointed out that White recognized his previously unblemished career had been tarnished and that he should have deleted the explicit photograph but failed to do so. The lawyer also noted the personal consequences White faced, including the breakdown of his marriage and his wife relocating to another county with their daughter. White had already resigned from his teaching position and was seeking a new career path.
Judge Heather Norton addressed the court, condemning White’s conduct and emphasizing the breach of trust involved. She stated, “You have heaped shame upon yourself and those around you. The distortions in your thinking must be addressed. In my view, you have shown a breathtaking lack of insight which was not just a slippage of standards. There was a serious breach of trust which you knew was wholly wrong.”
As a result, White was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two years. He was also placed under a two-year supervision order, disqualified from working with individuals under 18, and required to register as a sex offender. The case underscores the serious consequences of inappropriate conduct by individuals entrusted with positions of authority and the importance of safeguarding minors from exploitation.