RICHARD YOUNG AND SHOCKING SEX OFFENDER REVEALS IN CHESHIRE
Richard Young, a man with a troubling criminal history, was found to have been actively supervising children in Cheshire despite his status as a convicted sex offender.His actions raised serious concerns about child safety and the integrity of community supervision.
Young, aged 42 and residing on Stoneley Road in Crewe, had previously been convicted of a sexual offence.
In July 2018, he was handed a suspended sentence after a court found that he had committed voyeurism against a young girl.
Prosecutor Anna Price detailed that Young had secretly filmed the girl while she was showering, using a small camera concealed inside a toothpaste packet.
As part of his sentencing, Young was subject to a 10-year sexual harm prevention order, which included conditions requiring him to notify police if he changed his residence.
However, concerns about his compliance and safety measures arose when, in October of the following year, authorities discovered that Young was no longer living in Cheshire.
Instead, he had relocated to Wrexham without informing the police, thereby breaching the conditions of his court order.
Court records showed that in March 2020, Young had signed a tenancy agreement for a property in Wrexham and had since been living there with his new partner and her young son.
During proceedings, it was revealed that Young’s new partner was unaware of his criminal past.
She believed he was on a court order related to domestic violence, not sex offences.
The court judge, Rhys Rowlands, commented on Young's manipulative tendencies, describing him as a person who “has people believe what he wants them to,” which facilitated his ability to integrate into the community.
The residence in Wrexham was situated within a close-knit community where residents regularly socialized, hosting birthdays and barbecues.
Children from the neighborhood would often play at Young’s house, despite him being legally banned from having unsupervised contact with any minors under 16.
Ms.
Price highlighted that Young even created a garden pool during the summer and was “actively involved in supervising the children” during these times.
The community was unaware of Young’s past crimes.
Parents expressed outrage, revealing they would not have allowed their children to interact with him had they known.
One mother was especially furious about Young’s ability to embed himself in their social circles.
She described feeling “physically sick” at the thought of her young daughter having contact with him.
Young was arrested on November 2 of the previous year at his workplace.
During the arrest, police discovered two mobile phones and a laptop that Young had failed to declare, raising questions about his transparency and compliance with court orders.
Representing Young, lawyer Henry Hills acknowledged that his client was fully aware that his actions could lead to imprisonment.
He explained that Young, in an effort to forge a new life, had become overwhelmed by lies and felt unable to disclose his true past sooner.
Mr.
Hills emphasized that no direct harm had been caused to any child by Young’s actions and insisted Young had “learned a valuable lesson” and would not repeat the behaviour.
Ultimately, Judge Rhys Rowlands sentenced Young to 14 months in prison.
The judge explained that incarceration was necessary because Young had demonstrated a willingness to disregard court orders.
He stated, “Neither your partner at the time, nor the parents knew anything of your past,” emphasizing that Young’s conduct was a “calculated and deliberate attempt to evade the conditions imposed by the court.” The court’s decision underscored the importance of protecting children and upholding the integrity of legal restrictions designed to prevent reoffending.
