POOLE SEX OFFENDER ESCAPES PRISON DESPITE BREACHING COURT ORDER TWICE
A 21-year-old sex offender named Danny Cubitt has been involved in a series of breaches related to a court order.Initially, Cubitt was issued with a sexual harm prevention order after sending sexually explicit messages to someone he believed was a 14-year-old girl.
In reality, the recipient was a female police officer.
He sent "graphic" and "fetishistic" messages via Facebook, expressing a desire to have sex with the girl and discussing the possibility of meeting.
No meeting was arranged, and Cubitt eventually blocked her from messaging him.
He admitted attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child and was also in breach of a suspended sentence order for an earlier offence of affray.
Just two and a half months after being spared a jail sentence in September, Cubitt admitted to repeatedly messaging a teenage boy, breaching a sexual harm prevention order made on September 1, 2017.
He made 40 phone calls to the teenager between November 26 and December 1, and had a mobile phone that was internet-enabled and not registered with his offender manager.
He denied further charges of breaching the order by disposing of a phone capable of internet access; this charge was ordered to lie on file.
Despite mental health difficulties including Asperger's, autism, ADHD, a personality disorder, and depression, the court did not send him to prison but instead suspended his sentence.
The judge warned Cubitt he faces a "lengthy custodial sentence" upon his next court appearance.
He was sentenced to 12 months in prison suspended for two years, with additional requirements including 20 days of rehabilitative activities, five days for breach of his previous suspended sentence, registration requirements, and a decade-long sexual harm prevention order.
Cubitt appeared via video from HMP Winchester and wore casual clothing during the hearing.
The judge decided not to require a new pre-sentence report but planned to receive an update from his offender manager.
The case highlights ongoing concerns about the offender's behavior and adherence to court orders.
