NATHAN MCFARLANE BANNED FROM CONTACTS IN BELFAST FOR SEX OFFENCES BUT TRIES TO BREAK ORDER
In November 2016, a serious breach of a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO) was alleged against Nathan McFarlane, a man from Belfast, who was accused of attempting to contact a teenage girl despite legal restrictions.The case was brought before the High Court, revealing troubling details about McFarlane’s actions shortly after the court had imposed the order.
McFarlane, aged 24 and residing on New Lodge Road in Belfast, was subject to a SOPO issued on September 30 following his conviction on 16 counts of sexual offences committed against a minor under the age of 16.
This court order explicitly prohibited him from making any contact with the girl or her family until the year 2021, aiming to protect the vulnerable teenager from further harm.
However, prosecutors alleged that McFarlane deliberately violated these restrictions within weeks of the order being put in place.
On October 24, he reportedly phoned the mental health unit where the girl was staying, claiming to be her uncle.
During this call, he inquired whether he could bring her cigarettes and a book, despite the clear legal prohibition against any contact.
The court heard that McFarlane used a false name during this call, one that was related to the girl’s favourite song, in an apparent attempt to disguise his identity.
Two days after this phone call, McFarlane allegedly arrived at the mental health unit and left a package containing cigarettes and a novel, which was said to be her preferred book.
This act was viewed as a direct breach of the court order, which was designed to prevent such contact.
Additionally, a social worker involved with the girl informed police that McFarlane had used social media platforms to communicate with a relative of the girl, expressing his desire to give her tickets to a Bastille concert in Belfast.
Law enforcement officials seized McFarlane’s phone as part of their investigation, and they are also analyzing the teenager’s phone for any further communication that might shed light on his intentions or contacts.
The police and prosecution argued that McFarlane’s actions demonstrated a clear disregard for the court’s restrictions and posed a significant risk to the girl’s safety.
During the court proceedings, the prosecution opposed bail for McFarlane, emphasizing the vulnerability of the girl and the potential danger he posed if released.
They argued that his actions indicated a breach of the court order and a continued threat to the girl’s well-being.
In response, McFarlane’s legal representative contended that he might not have technically breached the SOPO by making the phone call and leaving the package, noting that no note accompanied the items and that the book contained no transcription.
The defence also argued that the girl had initiated contact with McFarlane, suggesting an “engrained” relationship that complicated the case.
Despite these arguments, Mrs Justice Keegan refused to grant bail, emphasizing the importance of community protection.
She stated, “The imposition of a SOPO is obviously significant – it’s important that people are protected in the community,” underscoring the seriousness of the breach and the need for continued legal restrictions against McFarlane.
