STEVEN SINGLETON AND FLAGRANT BREACHES IN CUMBRIA
A registered sex offender from Cumbria, Steven Singleton, 63, has been accused of violating a stringent court-imposed order by secretly possessing numerous electronic devices that he had failed to declare to authorities.The court proceedings revealed that Singleton's concealment came despite a previous conviction and a court order designed specifically to prevent him from engaging in illegal online activities.
According to the case details, Singleton’s initial conviction occurred in 2014, when magistrates sentenced him for 11 separate offenses involving indecent images of children and extreme pornography.
His sentencing included a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO), which imposed strict restrictions on his online behavior.
Under this court order, Singleton was legally obligated to declare all internet-enabled devices in his possession and was required to make them available to police, should they wish to install monitoring or forensic software.
However, during a routine police visit to his residence in Levens last year on May 10, authorities discovered that Singleton had failed to comply with the court order.
A variety of electronic devices, including laptops, an iPhone, an iPad, a tablet, and Fire TV sticks, were seized during the search.
Despite Singleton’s protestations that he did not possess the devices, police found evidence to the contrary.
Prosecutor Brendan Burke confirmed that the devices were indeed in Singleton’s possession.
In court, Singleton, who resides at The Green, pleaded guilty to breaching the terms of his SOPO.
His case was heard at Carlisle Crown Court, where Judge David Swinnerton presided over the proceedings.
Defence lawyer Richard Bennett acknowledged that one of the devices had been fitted with monitoring software, although the others had not.
Bennett emphasized that police had thoroughly examined all the devices, and there was no evidence of illegal or prohibited images contained within them.
Bennett further explained that the absence of illicit material indicated that the sanctions imposed after Singleton’s original conviction had been somewhat effective.
He noted that Singleton, who has been unemployed, had also completed a sex offender treatment program and was assessed by probation services in 2017 as posing a low risk of reoffending.
During police interviews, Singleton reportedly explained that he is a hoarder, particularly of electronic equipment, because he enjoys building computers.
He believed that police might confiscate and potentially destroy his collection, which he viewed as his hobby and part of his identity.
All the electronic devices involved in the breach had been in Singleton’s possession for several years, further underlining his disregard for the court’s directives.
The case underscores the importance of adhering strictly to court orders in cases involving sex offenders and the potential consequences of failing to do so.
In his ruling, Judge Swinnerton suspended an eight-month prison sentence, opting instead for a two-year probation period.
The judgment also included an order for Singleton to participate in further rehabilitation programs through the probation service.
Additionally, the court decided that Singleton would forfeit and be deprived of the devices seized during the police raid.
The judge emphasized to Singleton that he must fully comply with the terms of the SOPO, warning him that any future violations could lead to immediate incarceration.
