RHYS GEE FROM GLOUCESTER CAUGHT REFEREEING UNDER 14S MATCH DESPITE COURT ORDER
In a concerning incident that has raised questions about safeguarding and the oversight of convicted sex offenders within sports, Rhys Gee, a young rugby referee from Gloucester, was found to have officiated at an under 14s match despite being under a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.This breach occurred in March of this year in Gloucestershire, and the case was brought to light during a hearing at Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court.
According to court proceedings, Rhys Jack Gee, aged 19 and residing in Kingsholm, Gloucester, took part in refereeing a junior rugby match in direct violation of the restrictions imposed by his court order.
The order, which had been in place for 13 months at the time, was issued after Gee admitted to serious offenses involving the creation and distribution of indecent images of children, as well as possession of extreme pornography.
The order explicitly prohibited him from having contact with children under the age of 14, yet he was found to have officiated at a match involving such minors.
The prosecution, led by Jo Wallis, explained that the Sexual Harm Prevention Order was imposed on February 11, 2016, following Gee’s guilty plea to the charges.
The order was meant to restrict his interactions with minors and prevent any further offenses.
Despite this, it was revealed that Gee’s sexual offender manager became aware of his involvement in refereeing matches, including those involving adults, in the local Gloucestershire area.
An agreement was made that he could referee adult matches without informing the Rugby Football Union (RFU), a decision reviewed by a police constable named Scott.
However, the situation changed when the RFU safeguarding officer was contacted and confirmed that Gee had refereed an under 14s match in March of that year.
Upon being confronted with this information, Gee admitted to the breach and was subsequently charged.
He pleaded guilty at his first court appearance, acknowledging that he had violated the terms of his court order by officiating at a match involving children under 14.
During the hearing, the defense, represented by Tim Burrows, argued that Gee was a young and qualified referee, eager to develop his career within the sport.
Burrows explained that Gee was caught in a difficult situation, initially declining to referee a junior match because it involved an old team of his, but then being switched to another junior game.
The defense emphasized that Gee took precautions, such as changing in public and avoiding private contact, and that he immediately admitted his mistake once it was brought to his attention.
Despite acknowledging his error, the Gloucestershire RFU decided to revoke Gee’s refereeing credentials, effectively ending his officiating career within the organization.
The court heard that Gee has invested significant effort into his rugby pursuits, including securing accommodation and employment, and that he struggles with the repercussions of his past actions.
District Judge Joti Bopa-Rai considered the circumstances carefully, noting that Gee had pleaded guilty early and that the breach occurred 13 months after the court order was issued.
She acknowledged that the incident took place in a public setting, on a rugby field with other people present, which limited the potential for harm.
Nonetheless, she emphasized that there was a risk involved and that the court must uphold the importance of safeguarding minors.
In her sentencing, Judge Bopa-Rai imposed a 24-month referral order, requiring Gee to participate in a one-to-one rehabilitation program for 30 days.
Additionally, Gee was fined £50, ordered to pay £85 in prosecution costs, and a victim surcharge of £85.
The judge also noted that while custodial punishment was a possibility, she chose not to impose it, recognizing that Gee was already being penalized through the loss of his refereeing privileges and the impact on his personal and professional life.
She concluded by warning that media coverage of the case was inevitable, but reassured Gee that the court’s decision aimed to balance justice with the need for rehabilitation.
