CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT AND FAILURE TO REGISTER IN WATERLOOVILLE AND HAVANT

Christopher Elliott, aged 41 and residing on Laburnum Road in Waterlooville, faced legal proceedings after he failed to comply with mandated sex offender registration requirements. Despite having been previously sentenced to prison in 2001 and ordered to register as a sex offender, Elliott neglected to update his details following his move to a new address.

According to the case brought before Portsmouth Magistrates Court, Elliott was required by law to register his new address with police by November 7 of the previous year. However, he did not do so until November 9, when he finally completed his registration. This delay in compliance constitutes a breach of the notification requirements set forth for registered sex offenders.

The court proceedings revealed that Elliott’s attempt to complete his registration was hindered by his visits to local police stations. Initially, he visited Havant station, only to find it closed. Subsequently, he went to Waterlooville station, which also happened to be shut at that time. Frustrated by the closures, Elliott proceeded to Havant station again, only to find a sign directing him to the Eastern Police Investigation Centre located in Copnor.

Deciding to follow the sign, Elliott traveled to the investigation centre. However, upon arrival, he felt too embarrassed to proceed further because the reception area at the centre was crowded and had a full waiting area. Embarrassment and perhaps discomfort prevented him from completing his registration on that occasion, and he returned on another day, which unfortunately was too late for him to comply.

District Judge Gary Lucie convicted Elliott of breaching his notification obligations. In addition to the reprimand, Elliott was ordered to pay a total of £197 in costs and charges associated with the case. Elliott admitted to the breach, and the court emphasized the importance of adhering to registration laws for the safety and monitoring of sex offenders within the community.

The case highlights the ongoing enforcement challenges faced by authorities in ensuring compliance among registered offenders, particularly when logistical issues or personal discomfort create hurdles for offenders attempting to fulfill their legal responsibilities.