CANFIELD MAN DAVID LANE SENTENCED IN LONDON FOR CHILD SEX OFFENCES
| Red Rose Database
Canfield Rapist
In January 2014, a disturbing case unfolded involving David Lane, a resident of Canfield, who was found guilty of serious child sex offences and was subsequently sentenced in London. Lane, aged 24 and residing on Hubberd Road in Canfield, was caught in a police sting operation after he arranged to meet what he believed was a 10-year-old boy with the intent to commit sexual assault.
During the court proceedings at Inner London Crown Court, Judge Nigel Seed QC addressed Lane directly, emphasizing the gravity of his actions and the danger he posed to young children. Despite acknowledging that Lane was a first-time offender, the judge made it clear that Lane's intentions and mental state were deeply troubling. Judge Seed described Lane as having “pretty deviant and perverted ideas,” and remarked that it was uncertain whether Lane would have carried out the assault had he not been intercepted. The judge further stated, “It would have been oral rape and whether you would have carried it out we will never know.”
The court was informed that Lane’s arrest followed a setup with an undercover police officer, who posed as a parent with a son. Lane’s disturbing online conversations revealed a fixation on inappropriate themes involving “dads and boys,” with Lane explicitly stating that a 10-year-old boy would be “perfect” for his desires. He expressed a desire to see a father and son engaged in sexual imagery and even discussed acts of oral sex, indicating a clear intent to commit sexual offences.
Lane’s background was also scrutinized, revealing that both his father and uncle are convicted sex offenders. He pleaded guilty to charges of arranging or facilitating an act involving oral rape, as well as possessing eight indecent images of children. The images found on his devices ranged from Level Four to Level Five in severity, with over half classified as the most serious. Police discovered a total of 64 indecent images on Lane’s computer and phone, none of which he had taken himself.
In court, Lane’s legal representative, Ann-Marie Talbot, argued that her client was remorseful and had taken the opportunity to confess and unburden himself. She emphasized that Lane was young and capable of change, suggesting that a custodial sentence might not be the best course of action. Lane himself expressed regret, stating, “I’ve tried to block this for too many years. I started at the age of 11 and 12 and tried to have girlfriends… I know you can’t stop this for a fact.”
Despite these pleas, the judge recognized the severity of Lane’s actions and the potential risk he posed to society. He pointed out that no prison sentence could be long enough to ensure Lane received the necessary treatment. Lane had been in custody since his arrest, and the court imposed a two-year prison sentence, suspended for two years, along with two years of probation. Conditions of his probation include participation in a sex offender treatment program and NHS psychotherapy. Additionally, Lane was ordered to sign the sex offenders register for ten years and was subjected to an indefinite Sexual Offenders Prevention Order.
Prosecutor Tom Wilkins detailed the police operation that led to Lane’s arrest, highlighting that the Metropolitan Police’s Child Protection Command monitored online activity and conversations. Lane’s online exchanges revealed a disturbing interest in “dads and boys,” with explicit statements about wanting a boy to perform oral sex on him and to involve the police officer’s supposed son in sexual acts. After purchasing lubricants and condoms, Lane was arrested and fully confessed to his intentions and actions.
In conclusion, Judge Seed emphasized that while Lane’s background and circumstances might evoke some sympathy, they did not justify his behavior. He stressed the importance of treatment and public safety, stating, “It is in the public interest to make sure you receive the appropriate treatment, getting you out of your deviant behaviour and protecting children.” The case underscores the ongoing efforts of law enforcement to combat online child exploitation and the importance of judicial measures to prevent future harm.
During the court proceedings at Inner London Crown Court, Judge Nigel Seed QC addressed Lane directly, emphasizing the gravity of his actions and the danger he posed to young children. Despite acknowledging that Lane was a first-time offender, the judge made it clear that Lane's intentions and mental state were deeply troubling. Judge Seed described Lane as having “pretty deviant and perverted ideas,” and remarked that it was uncertain whether Lane would have carried out the assault had he not been intercepted. The judge further stated, “It would have been oral rape and whether you would have carried it out we will never know.”
The court was informed that Lane’s arrest followed a setup with an undercover police officer, who posed as a parent with a son. Lane’s disturbing online conversations revealed a fixation on inappropriate themes involving “dads and boys,” with Lane explicitly stating that a 10-year-old boy would be “perfect” for his desires. He expressed a desire to see a father and son engaged in sexual imagery and even discussed acts of oral sex, indicating a clear intent to commit sexual offences.
Lane’s background was also scrutinized, revealing that both his father and uncle are convicted sex offenders. He pleaded guilty to charges of arranging or facilitating an act involving oral rape, as well as possessing eight indecent images of children. The images found on his devices ranged from Level Four to Level Five in severity, with over half classified as the most serious. Police discovered a total of 64 indecent images on Lane’s computer and phone, none of which he had taken himself.
In court, Lane’s legal representative, Ann-Marie Talbot, argued that her client was remorseful and had taken the opportunity to confess and unburden himself. She emphasized that Lane was young and capable of change, suggesting that a custodial sentence might not be the best course of action. Lane himself expressed regret, stating, “I’ve tried to block this for too many years. I started at the age of 11 and 12 and tried to have girlfriends… I know you can’t stop this for a fact.”
Despite these pleas, the judge recognized the severity of Lane’s actions and the potential risk he posed to society. He pointed out that no prison sentence could be long enough to ensure Lane received the necessary treatment. Lane had been in custody since his arrest, and the court imposed a two-year prison sentence, suspended for two years, along with two years of probation. Conditions of his probation include participation in a sex offender treatment program and NHS psychotherapy. Additionally, Lane was ordered to sign the sex offenders register for ten years and was subjected to an indefinite Sexual Offenders Prevention Order.
Prosecutor Tom Wilkins detailed the police operation that led to Lane’s arrest, highlighting that the Metropolitan Police’s Child Protection Command monitored online activity and conversations. Lane’s online exchanges revealed a disturbing interest in “dads and boys,” with explicit statements about wanting a boy to perform oral sex on him and to involve the police officer’s supposed son in sexual acts. After purchasing lubricants and condoms, Lane was arrested and fully confessed to his intentions and actions.
In conclusion, Judge Seed emphasized that while Lane’s background and circumstances might evoke some sympathy, they did not justify his behavior. He stressed the importance of treatment and public safety, stating, “It is in the public interest to make sure you receive the appropriate treatment, getting you out of your deviant behaviour and protecting children.” The case underscores the ongoing efforts of law enforcement to combat online child exploitation and the importance of judicial measures to prevent future harm.