RICHARD MACKIN CAUGHT IN DARLINGTON CHILD SEX OPERATION WITH POLICE UNDERCOVER OFFICER
In November 2018, a disturbing case unfolded in Darlington involving a local man who was caught in a police child sex operation.The incident came to light when Richard Mackin, aged 38, engaged in online conversations with what he believed was a 12-year-old girl.
Unbeknownst to him, he was actually communicating with an undercover police officer.
During these exchanges, Mackin, who works in an office in Darlington, falsely claimed to be 22 years old.
He sent explicit photographs to the fictitious persona he thought was named Sofia, and discussed highly inappropriate and sexual topics, including 'penetrative sexual activity,' as revealed by prosecutor Paul Abrahams during the proceedings at Teesside Crown Court.
It was a calculated attempt by Mackin to groom a minor, but the case took a different turn when he discovered that his conversation partner was an undercover officer rather than a real child.
Despite the serious nature of his actions, Mackin avoided immediate imprisonment.
The court heard that he had voluntarily sought help for his behavior and was considered to pose a low risk of re-offending.
As part of his sentencing, Mackin received a 20-month prison sentence that was suspended, meaning he would not serve time unless he committed further offenses.
Additionally, he was ordered to participate in a one-to-one treatment program aimed at addressing his conduct.
The judge, Peter Armstrong, also mandated Mackin to contribute £500 towards the legal costs of the case.
Furthermore, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order was imposed to restrict Mackin’s access to computers and the internet, and to prevent him from having unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of 16.
These measures are designed to prevent any future attempts of similar nature.
Richard Mackin, of Brankin Road in Darlington, pleaded guilty to charges of attempting to cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity and attempting to cause a child to view a sexual image.
The court was informed that although Mackin believed he was communicating with a minor, no actual child was harmed in this case, as the 'girl' was a fictitious character created by police.
Mr.
Cleasby, representing the prosecution, emphasized that the case should be viewed in the context of the actual harm inflicted.
He stated, 'He should be dealt with for the actual harm in this case, and because the character was fictitious, there was no harm.
No child has, in fact, been groomed in the conventional sense.
No actual harm came from the grooming.'
