DANIEL WOOD JAILER IN KIDDERMINSTER FOR REPEATEDLY VIOLATING COURT ORDERS PROTECTING CHILDREN
In September 2017, a serious case involving Daniel Wood, a known sex offender from Kidderminster, unfolded in Worcester Crown Court, highlighting a pattern of blatant disregard for court-imposed restrictions aimed at safeguarding children.Wood, whose address was listed as Nursery Grove, faced the court after admitting to multiple breaches of legal orders designed to prevent him from having contact with minors.
Prosecutor Paul Whitfield detailed that Wood had been subject to a risk of serious harm order since April 30, 2009.
This order explicitly prohibited him from engaging with two specific children and also barred him from forming relationships with anyone under the age of 16.
Despite these restrictions, Wood had moved to Birmingham without informing his designated offender manager, a move that placed him in close proximity to four children on a daily basis.
The mother of these children was unaware of Wood’s criminal history or the restrictions placed upon him, which raised significant concerns about the potential risk to the children involved.
Mr.
Whitfield emphasized that there were instances where Wood was found alone with the children, including being upstairs with them, which constituted a clear breach of the court orders.
He described Wood’s conduct as both flagrant and ongoing, highlighting a troubling pattern of non-compliance.
The court was informed that Wood had a history of failing to adhere to community orders, with at least four convictions related to such breaches.
His previous penalties included a six-month prison sentence and a nine-week sentence, both for violations of court orders, which Whitfield characterized as part of a continued pattern of misconduct.
During the hearing, Wood’s defense lawyer, Charles Hamer, acknowledged that the pre-sentence report was not favorable but argued that Wood had not directly harmed any children.
Instead, he had merely been present in the same household as minors.
Hamer also pointed out that Wood had already served three months in custody, which was equivalent to a six-month sentence, and suggested this should be taken into account.
The breaches in question occurred between March 1 and April 7, 2017, concerning the notification requirements of the sex offender register, and between April 5 and May 22, 2017, involving the breach of the risk of serious harm order.
Recorder Martin Jackson described Wood’s actions as both deliberate and sustained.
Although he acknowledged Wood’s early guilty plea for the notification breach, he granted only a tenth of the possible credit for the breach of the harm order, as the guilty plea was entered only on the day of trial.
Recorder Jackson highlighted that Wood was on bail for a similar offence when he committed these breaches, which he considered an aggravating factor.
He noted that this was Wood’s eighth appearance before the court for breaches, making the current violations particularly serious and exceeding the threshold for detention.
Despite a letter from Wood expressing a desire to avoid prison based on past experiences, the judge pointed out that prison had not served as an effective deterrent, given the continued offending.
As a result, Wood was sentenced to nine months in prison for breaching the risk of serious harm order and an additional four months for the notification breaches, with both sentences to run concurrently.
Furthermore, the court imposed an indefinite sexual harm prevention order, citing Wood’s ongoing risk, especially to children.
This order restricts him from having any contact with children under 16, except in cases of inadvertent or unavoidable contact during daily life, and prohibits him from inviting or allowing any child under 16 into his home or garden.
The order will remain in effect indefinitely, and Wood must apply for its removal if he wishes to have it lifted.
