Paedophile who flouted orders back behind bars

A Nelson paedophile banned from contact with children stayed with a mother-of-three and also at the home of another woman he knew had a young family, a court heard.

Burnley Crown Court.
Burnley Crown Court.

Burnley Crown Court was told how David Perry, who had met both women, from Liverpool, via a messaging service, had also communicated with a child on Facebook.

Perry, who served a 40-month sentence behind bars for sexual activity with a child, was flouting the sexual offenders register as well, as he was supposed to be at an address notified to the police.

Perry was said to have become quite emotional and to have “thrown a tantrum” when he was questioned a second time by police after he was caught and arrested and shouted to officers: “Take me to jail.”

They did, he has been there since and he has now been given a six month prison term for ignoring the court orders.

The defendant (32), of Napier Street, had been convicted of failing to comply with a sexual offences prevention order and two allegations of doing a prohibited act.

Prosecutor Mr Stephen Parker said in November, 2011, Perry had been sent to custody at Preston Crown Court.

He was made subject to a 10-year sexual offences prevention order and also the notification requirements.

Under the SOPO, he was prohibited from associating with any child under 16, from contacting or seeking to contact any child under 16 and from allowing any child under 16 into the address at which he was staying.


Hide Ad

Officers from the Dangerous and Sexual Offenders Unit went to visit him at a hostel on his release from custody in August, 2013. Perry signed a copy of the notification requirements and as part of his management, police visited him regularly.

Mr Parker said on January 7th, he was not at the address he was supposed to be staying at in Nelson.

Further visits were also made and he wasn’t there. Perry was eventually spoken to on January 14th, when he attended Burnley police station to sign his annual registration requirement. He was not at his address on January 19th when police visited.

Inquiries revealed he might be in contact with a woman in Liverpool.


Hide Ad

Police obtained her number and called her and she said she was aware he had been in prison, but didn’t know why.

Mr Parker said the defendant was contacted by police, initially claimed he had been working in Skipton, but eventually surrendered to Burnley police station. He was interviewed about the breaches and made a number of admissions.

The prosecutor told the hearing Perry said he had stayed with the mother-of-three, whose children were all aged under 18, perhaps as many as 10 times and they had been present on occasion when he had been at the house.

He admitted staying at the second woman’s house and not telling the police. Mr Parker said: “She did have children under the age of 16, albeit she suggested, as did the defendant, he had not been in contact with them. One of the children had not been present and the others were staying with their natural father.”


Hide Ad

Miss Claire Thomas, for Perry, said he had become increasingly isolated and was looking for female company.

The barrister said the defendant, who had previously misused drink and drugs, had done significant work with the probation service while on licence and had reduced his alcohol consumption. He had been on remand for a month.

Sentencing, Recorder Andrew Long told Perry the purpose of the orders was to prevent him having contact with any children and to allow the police to know exactly where he was living at any one time.

The judge continued: “Because of your conduct you have managed to circumvent the purpose of both these orders and breaches of these orders are taken very seriously indeed.”