JAMES DUNCAN FROM INGOL CAUGHT IN SEXUAL CHAT WITH UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICER IN PRESTON

In September 2014, James Duncan, a 34-year-old man from Threefields, Ingol, found himself at the center of a serious criminal investigation involving online sexual misconduct. Duncan, a married man and active churchgoer, engaged in a series of inappropriate conversations with what he believed was a 12-year-old girl he met on an internet chat platform. Unbeknownst to him, the girl was an undercover police officer conducting an operation to catch individuals attempting to exploit minors online.

Preston Crown Court heard that Duncan's online interactions spanned over a period of five weeks. During this time, he engaged in private chats with what he thought was a young girl, but in reality, he was communicating with an undercover officer. The court was informed that Duncan was caught when investigators uncovered a disturbing exchange in which he asked the fictitious child, “Are you a swimsuit or a bikini girl?” This question was part of a pattern of sexually suggestive inquiries he made during their conversations.

Wearing a navy blue polo shirt and tracksuit bottoms at the time of his arrest, Duncan had previously admitted to two counts of inciting a 12-year-old girl to engage in sexual activity. These admissions related to two separate online conversations conducted via the Skype account he believed belonged to the young girl. The court was told that Duncan’s actions were serious attempts to encourage sexual activity, despite the fact that the girl was a police decoy. Judge Stuart Baker sentenced Duncan to 16 months in prison last week.

Emma Kehoe, prosecuting, explained that the case was part of a police undercover operation. She emphasized that the girl involved was fictitious, which meant the charges were attempts rather than completed offenses. Kehoe detailed how Duncan continually engaged in sexual conversations, asking the girl what she was wearing and whether she was a swimsuit or bikini girl. These exchanges included explicit language and were characterized as inappropriate adult conversations.

Kehoe further stated that Duncan actively tried to conceal these conversations from his family, urging the girl to keep their chats secret. He also discussed the possibility of meeting her in person, although he was cautious about proposing a specific time or place. When he did suggest a meeting, he hinted that he would be willing to meet if he “was her age,” which indicated an awareness of the wrongfulness of his intentions.

The last recorded conversation took place on July 22, during which Duncan suggested meeting at a swimming baths and asked if she had ever thought of him in a “dirty way.” Following this exchange, police obtained a warrant, leading to his arrest on July 24. During police interviews, Duncan admitted to chatting with girls he believed to be young and acknowledged that he had answered their questions. He described the girls as “inquisitive,” attempting to justify his actions.

In his defense, Darren Lee Smith highlighted that Duncan’s family was supportive and that he recognized the shame his actions had brought upon his church community, which was an evangelist church he attended. Despite this, Judge Baker delivered a stern warning, emphasizing the gravity of the offense. He stated that it was a “very sad occasion” when a man of Duncan’s age, with a wife and children, faces imprisonment and the stigma associated with being placed on the sex offender’s register and subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO).

Judge Baker concluded by remarking that Duncan’s downfall stemmed from his decision to enter a chat room and engage in internet conversations with someone he believed was a child, highlighting the serious consequences of such actions and the importance of safeguarding minors from online exploitation.