BILLINGHAM SEX OFFENDER ETHAN VICKERS IGNORED COURT ORDERS DAYS AFTER RELEASE
A sex offender, Ethan Vickers, was released from prison only a few days before he contacted a "vulnerable" 17-year-old woman, a court heard.Vickers was subject to several restrictions under a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) imposed following his incarceration in October 2023.
The court was told that these included prohibitions against deleting internet history and using aliases on social media without approval from his public protection officer.
Despite these orders, shortly after his release on February 20, police discovered he had contacted the minor.
Prosecutor Victoria Lamballe reported that the messages were from the same victim of his previous offenses when she was 15.
Vickers was explicitly instructed not to contact her but did so, sending sexually explicit messages and discussing meeting her.
Police found the messages had been deleted from his phone but later uncovered that he had accessed Twitter under the alias 'Soft Boy 123' using X, which was also against the court order.
It emerged that other messages uncovered involved conversations with third parties related to child abuse, suggesting he had deleted his own comments.
Vickers, appearing via video link from HMP Holme House, admitted to breaching the SHPO twice.
He has four previous convictions for 15 relevant offenses, including inciting a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity, possessing indecent images of children, and seeking to meet a girl for sex.
He received a 28-month sentence in October 2023 and an indefinite order.
Last August, he was also sentenced to an additional eight months for more indecent images.
The latest breaches occurred while he was on license and just days after his release.
Judge Jo Kidd sentenced him to a further 28 months in prison, emphasizing his disregard for court orders and ongoing interest in child exploitation images.
Vickers's behavior demonstrated a pattern of repeated offending, and he was warned that he lacked understanding of the seriousness of his actions, despite diagnosis on the autism spectrum.
The judge noted that since the victim was nearing 18 and did not request a restraining order, none was issued.
The case highlights his failure to adhere to court restrictions and the ongoing risk he poses.
