RICHARD MASON FROM NORTON AND YORK SENT BACK TO JAIL FOR BREACHING COURT ORDERS

In a serious development in the ongoing case of Richard Mason, a known sex offender with ties to Norton and York, he has been returned to prison after violating court-imposed restrictions designed to safeguard children. The incident, which took place in York, highlights the continued challenges in monitoring and controlling individuals with a history of sexual offenses against minors.

Richard Mason, aged 43 and formerly residing in Norton, had previously been convicted in 2009 for three separate sexual offenses committed against two young girls. His sentence at that time was four years, and he was placed on the sex offenders’ register for life. Additionally, Mason was subject to a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO), which prohibited him from having any unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of 16 for a period of ten years. This legal measure was intended to prevent any potential grooming or abuse, given Mason’s criminal history.

Despite these restrictions, Mason was released on parole partway through his sentence and subsequently established a residence in York. It was during this period that authorities allege he breached the terms of his SOPO. York Crown Court heard that Mason approached a young girl playing outside a block of flats and attempted to engage her by offering her an ice lolly and a can of pop. According to court reports, Mason told the girl, “I have got an ice lolly for you” and “I have got a can of pop for you,” statements that raised immediate concern among those nearby.

It is important to note that Mason was explicitly forbidden from having any contact with children, especially in a manner that could be construed as grooming or inappropriate. His actions prompted the mother of the children to observe the situation closely. She overheard Mason’s comments and, alarmed by his behavior, reported the incident to authorities. Mason later claimed to police that he had been to the shops and that he felt guilty for not giving the children anything, describing himself as a “generous” person. However, he acknowledged that the children had not asked for the sweets or drinks he offered.

During the court proceedings, it was clarified that there was no evidence suggesting Mason had committed any sexual offense with the girl involved in this incident. The prosecution emphasized that Mason’s breach was primarily a violation of the court order rather than an act of sexual misconduct. Mason pleaded guilty to two breaches of the sexual offences prevention order, which resulted in an additional eight months of imprisonment. The Ministry of Justice had already recalled him to serve the remainder of his original four-year sentence, underscoring the seriousness with which the legal system views such violations.

Prosecutor Alan Mitcheson explained that the mother of the children had been vigilant and had witnessed Mason’s comments, which prompted her to report the matter. Mason’s defense, represented by Laura Addy, described the incident as a momentary lapse in judgment. She acknowledged that Mason was aware of his “issues” and expressed his willingness to cooperate with probation services and police to address his behavior and prevent future incidents.

Looking back at Mason’s criminal history, it is evident that his offenses span over several years. In July 2009, Mason was sentenced to four years in prison after being found guilty of three sexual offenses against young girls. His criminal record also includes a 1995 conviction for indecent assault on a teenager while working as a security officer at Flamingo Land. During that case, Mason approached one of the girls while naked, and after she refused his advances, he physically assaulted her by grabbing her neck and throwing her onto a sofa. The girl reported the physical attack but was too frightened to disclose the indecent assault until she learned of Mason’s involvement in another similar incident.

Despite these serious allegations, Mason maintained his innocence, claiming he could not understand why the girls had made such accusations. His barrister, Ruth Cranige, suggested that the girls might have fabricated the stories or sought attention, a claim both girls denied. The court was also informed that Mason’s actions and history would have significant adverse effects on his current partner, her children, and his elderly mother, who is 61 years old.

In addition to his imprisonment, Mason was subjected to a 10-year Sexual Offence Prevention Order, which restricts him from having unsupervised contact with females under 16. He was also placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register for life and barred from working with children in any capacity. These measures reflect the ongoing concern about Mason’s potential risk to the community and the importance of strict supervision to prevent any future harm.