GEORGE FREEMAN FROM PLYMSTOCK JAILED FOR UNDERAGE SEX IN PLYMOUTH

In a serious case that has shocked the local community, George Freeman, a 21-year-old resident of Plymstock, was sentenced to over three years in prison for engaging in sexual activity with a girl who was only 15 years old. The incident took place on November 1, 2012, and was brought to light during a court hearing at Plymouth Crown Court.

According to court proceedings, Freeman took advantage of the young girl while she was heavily intoxicated, rendering her unable to resist or give proper consent. The judge, Paul Darlow, emphasized that Freeman was fully aware of the girl’s age at the time of the incident. The court heard that the girl was so drunk that she was insensible, which made her particularly vulnerable to exploitation.

Judge Darlow stated, “Not only was she vulnerable because of her age but also because she was drunk to the point of insensibility. You took advantage of her when she was totally powerless to resist.” The court was informed that Freeman had admitted to engaging in sexual activity with a minor, and DNA evidence was presented, showing that his genetic material was found on the girl’s body. It was also noted that the sexual encounter was unprotected.

Furthermore, the court learned that Freeman had previous warnings from police related to similar offences. Specifically, he had received police cautions in 2008 and 2009, when he was approximately 16 or 17 years old, indicating a troubling pattern of behavior.

During the sentencing hearing, Freeman’s defense lawyer, Nick Lewin, argued that the incident was a “drunken mistake” and urged the court not to impose a prison sentence. Lewin suggested that the victim’s intoxication should also be considered, implying that her state contributed to the incident. He emphasized that Freeman was 20 years old at the time and argued that sending him to prison would serve no constructive purpose. Instead, Lewin proposed that sex offender treatment programs could be more effective in preventing future offenses and helping Freeman reintegrate into society.

However, Judge Darlow was firm in his decision, stating that custody was appropriate given the circumstances. He also warned that if he were to suspend the prison sentence, it was likely that the case would be appealed. Ultimately, Freeman was sentenced to three years and four months in prison, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for justice in this case.