GORDON LANG FROM RADCLIFFE FACES TROUBLES OVER INTERNET DEVICES AND SEX OFFENCE ORDER

In October 2017, a serious incident unfolded involving Gordon Lang, a resident of Spencer Avenue in Radcliffe, who found himself at the center of a police investigation concerning his compliance with a Sexual Offence Prevention Order. The case highlights ongoing concerns about the monitoring and enforcement of such orders, especially in relation to internet-enabled devices.

Gordon Lang, a 79-year-old man with a long history of convictions dating back to the late 1960s, was subject to strict conditions following his previous convictions for offences including gross indecency, indecent exposure, and indecent assault of a female. These convictions led to the imposition of a Sexual Offence Prevention Order, which explicitly permitted him to own certain devices but mandated that police be allowed to inspect them at any time.

On September 4, police officers attended Lang’s residence to conduct a routine spot-check as part of their enforcement duties. During this visit, they encountered a situation that would raise questions about compliance and honesty. When questioned about his possession of internet-enabled devices, Lang claimed that he only owned an old mobile phone. However, upon inspecting a router connected to his home network, officers discovered a Samsung mobile phone actively connected to the internet, contradicting his statement.

Initially, Lang denied any knowledge of the phone, but the officers persisted, and he eventually produced the device from his trouser pocket. Further searches of his home revealed three additional devices capable of internet connectivity: a tablet, a digital camera, and a smart watch. These discoveries indicated that Lang possessed multiple devices that he was supposed to allow police to inspect under the terms of his order.

During the court proceedings, the prosecution, led by Michael Brady at Bolton Crown Court, emphasized the importance of honesty and compliance. The defense, represented by Mark Shanks, argued that Lang had attempted to conceal the devices because he believed he would be in trouble if police found them. Shanks explained, “He believed that as they were internet-connected devices he believed he was not supposed to have them and was frightened when the police turned up. He was perfectly entitled to have them.”

Shanks also highlighted that Lang was remorseful for his actions and was actively engaging with the probation service, which had stressed the importance of adhering to the Sexual Offence Prevention Order. The defense further noted that Lang maintained contact with his sister, her daughter, and her husband, who is battling cancer, emphasizing his emotional support network and his efforts to move past his previous offenses. He stated, “He is trying to put this aspect of his life behind him.”

Judge Graeme Smith, presiding over the case, sentenced Lang to a 12-month community order, which includes a requirement to participate in 10 days of rehabilitation activities. The judge expressed concern that police had yet to analyze the devices seized from Lang’s home, leaving uncertainty about whether they contained indecent images or had been used to search for inappropriate material. He remarked, “I’m told the reason the phone has not been examined is a resource issue for the police. It troubles me in terms of meeting the effectiveness of Sexual Offences Prevention Orders. If police are not in a position to carry out that activity, what’s the point of the court making them?”

Furthermore, the judge made it clear that Lang’s failure to disclose the devices when asked was a significant breach. He questioned why Lang possessed the devices if he believed they were prohibited, suggesting that Lang’s actions indicated a disregard for the court’s orders. The judge warned that if any indecent material were found on the devices after examination, Lang would face separate charges and appear before the court again. He concluded by emphasizing the importance of compliance and the potential consequences of further violations, stating, “If when your devices are ultimately examined by the police show material you should not have viewed, you will be back before the court and that will be something entirely separate.”