PAUL LINES FROM WEYMOUTH SENTENCED FOR BREACHING COURT ORDER IN DORCHESTER
In October 2011, Paul Anthony Lines, a 27-year-old resident of Weymouth, faced legal consequences after violating the conditions set by a court order related to his previous sexual offences.Lines had been subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order since February 2007, which was imposed following his conviction for engaging in sexual activity with a girl under the age of 16.
The order explicitly prohibited him from using or possessing any device capable of internet access, aiming to prevent further offending behavior.
Despite these restrictions, Lines was caught breaching the order on July 9 of that year.
The incident occurred at Weymouth Library, where a staff member observed him using a computer and subsequently reported the matter.
This breach was particularly serious given his prior history and the restrictions placed upon him.
During the sentencing hearing held at Dorchester Crown Court, prosecutor Desmond Duffy detailed the circumstances of the breach.
He explained that Lines, who resides on Westwey Road in Weymouth, had previously received a two-year prison sentence at Bournemouth Crown Court for violations of the same order last year.
At the time of the recent breach, Lines was on licence, which meant he was under supervision following his earlier incarceration.
The breach led to his recall to prison to serve the remaining portion of his sentence, with his earliest possible release date now set for June 17 of the following year.
Defense attorney Tim Shorter acknowledged that Lines had indeed violated the court order by using the internet.
However, he emphasized that the activity was not sexually motivated and was a breach of the order's terms rather than an indication of ongoing criminal intent.
Despite this, the court took a serious view of the breach.
Judge James Meston ultimately sentenced Lines to nine months in prison.
The sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the remaining period of his current incarceration, ensuring that the breach would be addressed within the context of his ongoing legal restrictions and supervision.
This case underscores the importance of strict adherence to court orders designed to protect vulnerable individuals and the consequences faced by those who violate such measures.
