JAMES MURPHY FROM GOLSPIE, SUTHERLAND, JAILED FOR BREACHING SEX OFFENDER RESTRICTIONS IN GOLSPIE

In August 2010, James Murphy, a 22-year-old sex offender with a history of restrictions aimed at protecting minors, was sentenced to a total of 14 months in prison after being found guilty of breaching the terms of his Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) on two separate occasions within a span of just two days. The incidents took place at a residence in Golspie, Sutherland, and the court proceedings were held at Dornoch Sheriff Court.

Murphy, who had previously been convicted in the High Court in November 2005, was subject to a SOPO that explicitly prohibited him from residing in or being present at any home where young girls under the age of 16 were living. The order also forbade him from approaching, communicating, or having any contact with girls under 16. Despite these strict conditions, Murphy was found to have violated the order twice in February of that year.

Procurator fiscal Roderick Urquhart explained to the court that Murphy had been living in East Sutherland earlier in the year, although his exact address was not disclosed during the proceedings. Murphy had developed a friendship with a local teenage boy who had two younger sisters of school age. This relationship raised concerns among Murphy’s supervising team, prompting a decision to inform the girls’ parents about Murphy’s background to prevent any potential contact.

On the afternoon of Thursday, February 25th, a social worker and police inspector visited the girls’ home to speak with their mother. Upon entering the kitchen, they discovered Murphy sitting there alongside several teenagers, including one of the young girls. Murphy was immediately arrested at that moment. An investigation revealed that just two days earlier, Murphy had been present in the same house in the company of the other sister. The court clarified that while there was no suggestion of any sexual activity occurring during these breaches, they constituted violations of the court order.

Murphy had been in custody since February 26th, following his arrest. His defense lawyer, Aileen McInnes, argued that her client’s interactions were minimal and contextually innocent. She explained that Murphy had become friendly with the brother of the two girls while both were living in homeless accommodation. On February 22nd, Murphy visited his friend after learning he was alone at his mother’s house in Golspie. During this visit, Murphy had a brief, non-sexual conversation with one of the girls who had just disembarked from the school bus and entered the kitchen. The lawyer emphasized that the contact was fleeting and that Murphy’s presence was unintentional, asserting that had the girl gone directly into another room, no breach would have occurred.

Regarding the second breach on February 25th, Ms. McInnes stated that Murphy arrived at the house with his friend but initially refused to go inside because he knew a girl was present. He was persuaded to enter by the mother of his friend due to the rain, despite resisting at first. She highlighted that Murphy was aware he should not have been there but was caught in a difficult situation. The police arrived during this incident, leading to his arrest.

Ms. McInnes also distinguished between the circumstances of the breaches and the original conviction that led to the SOPO. She stressed that there was no evidence of sexual impropriety, alcohol consumption, or any other misconduct during these incidents. The presence of minors was incidental, and the mother of the girl involved was unaware of Murphy’s background. A psychologist’s report indicated that Murphy posed a low risk of re-offending sexually but a high risk of breaching the order again, citing his limited problem-solving skills as a contributing factor.

Sheriff David Sutherland sentenced Murphy, backdating the prison term to February 26th, the day he was taken into custody. The use of Sexual Offences Prevention Orders, introduced in 2004 under the Sexual Offences Act, has been controversial. Civil rights advocates have criticized the broad scope of these orders, claiming they effectively restrict offenders from walking along roads or entering areas where children might be present, raising concerns about the potential for overreach and the impact on individual freedoms.