CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS RISHTON PAEDOPHILE'S PARK BAN LIFTED BY JUDGE OVER HUMAN RIGHTS

In a controversial decision that has sparked widespread debate, Christopher Williams, a 49-year-old man from Rishton with a long history of sexual offenses, has had his court-imposed restrictions on entering public parks and play areas eased by a judge at Burnley Crown Court. The ruling comes after Williams argued that the ban infringed upon his human rights and prevented him from maintaining his physical health.

Williams, who was previously convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison for tying up and molesting a 12-year-old boy, was subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) that prohibited him from accessing any play areas or parks where children might be present. This order was part of the measures taken to prevent him from reoffending and to protect the community, especially children, from potential harm. However, after his release, Williams claimed that the restrictions hindered his ability to stay fit, citing health issues such as a heart condition, asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis, which he said required regular exercise.

In his appeal, Williams requested permission to use his local park for exercise, arguing that the current restrictions were overly restrictive and detrimental to his health. The court, with Judge Andrew Woolman presiding alongside two magistrates, agreed to modify the order. The judge ruled that Williams could now exercise in his local park for up to an hour on weekdays, specifically when children are in school, but he would still be barred from entering any designated children's play areas. The decision also permitted him to play golf, which he claimed was essential for his physical well-being.

Judge Woolman emphasized that the decision was made with caution, acknowledging Williams's health needs while maintaining safeguards to prevent contact with children. He stated, “If we did not allow him, it would be potentially damaging to his health and would probably be a breach of his human rights.” The court made it clear that Williams would still be prohibited from going near any children's swings or play zones, and he would be monitored to ensure compliance.

Child protection advocates, however, expressed strong disapproval of the court’s decision. Rosie Carter, representing the child-protection charity Safechild, voiced her concerns, stating, “We despair of this decision. When that individual was risk-assessed, they thought he would possibly molest children and that’s why he was banned from entering parks and play areas. There must have been a serious risk identified, and parents and carers will be horrified that the Crown Court has overturned that decision. It’s truly appalling. They mention his human rights, but the welfare of children is paramount in English law, so we fail to understand how the court could override the Children Act 1989. It’s frightening.”

Williams’s criminal history is extensive. He was originally imprisoned at Chester Crown Court in 1996 for indecent assault and gross indecency after an attack on a 12-year-old boy, during which the child's hands and feet were bound. Additionally, he has a conviction from 1980 for indecent exposure and is subject to a lifetime ban from working with children. Despite serving his sentence, Williams continued to pose a risk, as evidenced by subsequent incidents.

In April of the previous year, authorities issued a warning after Williams, along with another convicted paedophile named David Higgs, 28, moved into a home in Rishton and hosted visits from local children. Police responded swiftly, arresting both men for breaching their Sexual Offences Prevention Orders. Higgs received an 18-month prison sentence and was ordered to register as a sex offender for ten years. Williams, however, received only a suspended sentence. Despite not offending against children for over 15 years, police still classify him as a “high risk sex offender.”

Further investigations revealed that Williams and Higgs had been involved in activities that raised serious concerns about child safety. Police reports indicated that a young boy spent the night at their Rishton residence, and there were reports of cigarettes and alcohol being available to children at their home. Higgs was also observed visiting a property where children aged between five and sixteen played, engaging in activities like hide and seek. Williams’s own contact with children remains a concern, especially since he admitted to a mother of a child that he and Higgs were not supposed to have children in their house.

Williams currently resides in a probation hostel in Carlisle, and his recent court application sought to modify his restrictions further, allowing him to walk in his local park and play golf. The court’s decision reflects a delicate balance between his health needs and community safety, with the court explicitly stating that no order could entirely eliminate the risk of contact with children, especially in everyday situations like shopping.

While the court has granted him limited outdoor activity, Williams remains under strict conditions, with specified hours when he is permitted outside his probation hostel. His past convictions, including a 1980 conviction for indecent exposure and his lifetime ban from working with children, continue to cast a shadow over his current status. The case underscores ongoing concerns about managing high-risk offenders and the challenges faced in balancing individual rights with public safety.