GREGORY SPEAKMAN IN IRLAM FLICTION ESCAPES JAIL BUT RECEIVES COMMUNITY ORDER

In October 2006, Gregory Speakman, a 21-year-old nursery teacher from Irlam Road, Flixton, was involved in a case that garnered significant attention. He was arrested after authorities discovered 89 indecent images of children stored on his computer. It also emerged that he had been accused of sexually assaulting two three-year-old girls in his care between September 2001 and January 2004, although the case against him collapsed due to contaminated evidence.

Speakman appeared at Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester for sentencing after admitting 12 charges of possessing and making indecent images of children. A previous charge of indecent assault was dismissed with a verdict of not guilty, with Speakman claiming that the thoughts may have been planted in the girls’ minds.

He received a three-year community order, requiring him to attend the Northumbria Sex Offenders Programme. Additionally, he was banned from working with children under 18—either paid or unpaid—and was ordered to sign the sex offenders register for five years.

During the trial, the court was told that Speakman had been suspended from his nursery role in 2003 following a complaint but was later reinstated. Prosecutor Nicola Gatto described how investigations resumed after a four-year-old girl claimed in January 2004 that her bottom was touched during a game. The girl reportedly told her mother that a man named "Greg" had instructed her not to tell anyone, prompting her parents to report the incident.

Speakman was suspended following this allegation, but initially, the girl’s mother was reluctant to pursue further investigation, fearing her daughter’s distress might worsen. Ms. Gatto explained, "She decided she wouldn’t assist because her daughter was upset and hoped it would fade from memory." It was only in March 2005 that the girl was re-interviewed by police.

Another girl, who left the nursery in 2003, later claimed that she had been touched. Her mother expressed concern when the girl showed reluctance to visit the nursery again, which later led to her disclosure of being touched. However, initial hesitation from her mother prevented these claims from being formally investigated at the time. Ms. Gatto recounted how, in January 2005, the girl later associated a character from a book they were reading—who resembled Mr. Speakman—with a memory of abuse.

Both girls alleged that the incidents occurred during lunchtime when other children watched videos and teachers ate their meals. Speakman told police he was unaware why the children made these claims, suggesting thoughts might have been planted.

Defense lawyer Mr. Andrew Long argued that the first girl’s accusations arose after she heard another child, not involved in the court case, falsely claim that Speakman had touched her. He highlighted the lack of medical evidence, noting that neither girl had complained at the time or shown signs of distress.

One of the girls—now aged seven—testified in court but was later discharged and her alleged offences dismissed. Mr. Long argued she was "suggestible" and easily persuaded by others, which influenced her testimony.

Judge Adrian Lyon dismissed the indecent assault charges, suggesting the mother may have influenced the girl or that her testimony was contaminated by gossip from other children. The judge stated, "There has been some contamination and a possibility of more. The evidence of this child has been contaminated by the information provided by the other children who formed part of this. There is no specific evidence that that happened but there is certainly room that it could have happened, it is a decided possibility. It would be impossible for the defendant to have a fair trial. There is no evidence, upon which a jury properly directed, could conclude the defendant was guilty. It is not a conclusion I have come to easily or without significant thought."

Regarding the indecent images, the judge acknowledged Speakman’s acceptance of guilt and willingness to seek help. He warned that breaching the community order could result in a custodial sentence, noting, "I’m pleased to see that you have accepted fully your guilt in respect of this matter and you have asked for help and assistance. I have borne in mind the number of offences of this type I am dealing with and the number of images, and I have had regard to guideline cases. It is a demanding sentence that many people have difficulty completing. If you breach this order I am likely to think in terms of a custodial sentence."