ROCKY KNIGHT, BURNLEY PAEDOPHILE, SENTENCED TO 20 MONTHS FOR BREACHES AND OFFENCES

In March 2021, Rocky Knight, a paedophile from Burnley, was sentenced to 20 months in prison after breaching a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) and notification requirements. The court heard that Knight had been found in possession of indecent images of children and had used social media platforms under pseudonyms to contact others, including on Grindr, which is a gay dating app.

The case emerged after a man Knight contacted on Grindr became concerned about the disturbing content of his messages and reported him to Burnley police. Judge David Potter stated: “You came to the attention of the police following your interaction with another person on social media. You had met this person through Grindr and sent them a disturbing but ultimately fantasy piece including child abuse. You were using a pseudonym. You were also using Snapchat under pseudonyms. The use of those placed you in breach of notification requirements and you were arrested.”

During the arrest, officers seized four mobile phones, but Knight refused to provide PINs. Despite this, officers accessed the devices and found evidence of deleting browsing history, with over 500 items deleted on one phone — including terms related to incest and gay pornography. Knight appeared in Magistrates’ Court, pleading not guilty to all breaches, and was released on bail.

Subsequent police visits in December 2019 revealed further violations. On December 14, an officer visited Knight’s Burnley address to check compliance, and after initial hesitation, Knight produced a Samsung and an iPhone from a hidden location. Examination revealed numerous open tabs and the use of the pseudonym ‘MartinClitheroe’ on Snapchat.

Knight was re-arrested and detained. The court heard that Knight had been ostracised from his traveller-community family after his initial conviction in 2019. The Bolton News, the sister paper of the Lancashire Telegraph, fought to name Knight publicly after he attempted to seek anonymity, citing fears of retribution.

Judge Potter emphasized the seriousness of the offences, stating: “Fair it is to say that an analysis of all the devices showed no possession of indecent images. It is true that your convictions have caused great strain upon your relationships with your family and you are now effectively ostracised from your family and wider community.” He noted that Knight’s breaches occurred just days after the order was issued, demonstrating a clear disregard for the restrictions placed upon him.

In February 2021, Knight, then 32, pleaded guilty to four breaches of the order and failure to comply with notification requirements at Burnley Crown Court. He was already under a SHPO following his 2019 conviction for possession and distribution of indecent images of children. Knight had fought for nearly two years to keep his identity anonymous, claiming that disclosure would put him and his family at risk within the traveller community. The Bolton News challenged this, and the court ultimately allowed his name to be published.

The court also highlighted previous offences, including a 2017 case where Knight was convicted of possessing indecent images, which included children as young as one, and distributing them to other paedophiles via chat apps. Police seized devices in November 2016 and found images of children aged 8 to 12 being abused, alongside images of children between one and three years old.

Knight was also convicted in December 2017 for illegal puppy farming in a case prosecuted by the RSPCA. The recent court proceedings revealed repeated violations, including accessing Snapchat with pseudonyms and using unnotified names on the sex offenders register.

Judge Gioserano sentenced Knight, of Colne Road, Burnley, considering his breaches and earlier convictions, to 20 months’ imprisonment. The judge remarked, “Breaching a sexual harm prevention order and notification requirements are always serious offences. As such, these offences are so serious that only an immediate sentence of custody is appropriate.” He also noted that the device analysis showed no evidence of indecent images, but the repeated breaches amidst a history of offending underscored the need for custodial punishment.