ANGEL GARROD FROM CHARMINSTER CAUGHT VIOLATING SEX OFFENDER RESTRICTIONS IN WINDEMERE ROAD
| Red Rose Database
Charminster Sexual Abuser
In May 2013, Angel Lee Raymond Garrod, a 40-year-old resident of Windermere Road in Charminster, found himself in legal trouble after breaching the conditions set by a court order. Garrod had previously been subject to a restraining order issued under section 5A of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 by Canterbury Magistrates Court, which explicitly prohibited him from accessing certain internet sites.
Despite these restrictions, Garrod admitted to accessing multiple websites online, an act that directly contravened the terms of his court-mandated order. His actions drew the attention of the authorities, leading to a court hearing where he was held accountable for his violations.
As part of his sentencing, Garrod was subjected to a community order. This order required him to participate actively in the Thames Valley Sex Offender Groupwork Programme. The programme is designed to provide offenders with the necessary support and intervention to prevent reoffending, and Garrod was instructed to attend and engage fully with the sessions. During his participation, he was expected to follow all instructions given by the responsible officer and adhere to the authority of the programme's leadership.
In addition to the community order, Garrod was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £60. He was also required to cover court costs amounting to £85. These penalties serve both as a punitive measure and as a means to support the judicial process.
Garrod’s case highlights ongoing concerns about compliance with court orders among sex offenders and underscores the importance of monitoring and enforcement to ensure public safety in communities like Charminster and Windermere Road.
Despite these restrictions, Garrod admitted to accessing multiple websites online, an act that directly contravened the terms of his court-mandated order. His actions drew the attention of the authorities, leading to a court hearing where he was held accountable for his violations.
As part of his sentencing, Garrod was subjected to a community order. This order required him to participate actively in the Thames Valley Sex Offender Groupwork Programme. The programme is designed to provide offenders with the necessary support and intervention to prevent reoffending, and Garrod was instructed to attend and engage fully with the sessions. During his participation, he was expected to follow all instructions given by the responsible officer and adhere to the authority of the programme's leadership.
In addition to the community order, Garrod was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £60. He was also required to cover court costs amounting to £85. These penalties serve both as a punitive measure and as a means to support the judicial process.
Garrod’s case highlights ongoing concerns about compliance with court orders among sex offenders and underscores the importance of monitoring and enforcement to ensure public safety in communities like Charminster and Windermere Road.