JAMIE RYDER FROM CAWSTON SENTENCED FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES INVOLVING 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL IN RUGBY

In a serious case that has shocked the local community, Jamie Ryder, a 28-year-old man from Oatland Drive, Cawston, was convicted and sentenced for engaging in sexual activities with a 13-year-old girl in Rugby. The incident came to light after a series of disturbing exchanges that took place via mobile phones, leading to Ryder’s arrest and subsequent legal proceedings.

According to court records, Ryder pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to a charge of sexual activity with a minor. The court heard that the offense involved a pattern of inappropriate communication, including messages and images exchanged between Ryder and the young girl. Following an adjournment to prepare a pre-sentence report, Judge Richard Griffith-Jones sentenced Ryder to four and a half years in prison. Additionally, Ryder was ordered to register as a sex offender for life, a measure designed to monitor and restrict his future interactions with vulnerable individuals.

Furthermore, the court imposed a restraining order that prohibits Ryder from having any contact with the girl for a period of ten years. A sexual harm prevention order was also issued, restricting Ryder’s association with children in general, in an effort to prevent any further offenses.

The case was initiated after a concerned friend of the 13-year-old girl disclosed her contact with Ryder to a teacher at her school. This revelation prompted an investigation by local authorities. Police officers quickly intervened, speaking with the girl and seizing Ryder’s phone for examination. The messages found on his device were described by prosecutor Simon Hunka as “full of innuendo,” starting with flirtatious exchanges and escalating to explicit requests, including one where Ryder asked the girl to “send one without the bra next time.”

Ryder denied that the indecent images on his phone were of the girl, but he admitted to sending her photographs of himself exposing his genitals. The messages also included instructions for her to delete their exchanges, indicating an attempt to conceal their communications. The girl later confided in her mother that she had engaged in sexual activity, initially claiming it was with someone named Grant. It was only after further police interviews that she revealed Ryder was her partner on a single occasion.

During police interviews, Ryder admitted that he and the girl had engaged in intercourse when he saw her, confirming the allegations. The court heard that Ryder’s actions caused significant emotional distress to the young girl, and the judge emphasized the importance of protecting children from individuals who exploit their vulnerability. Judge Griffith-Jones stated, “At 13, she was just a child, not to be the object of your selfish lust. Because you were weak and selfish, you caused her enormous upset and damage.” He further expressed concern about the girl’s future well-being, warning that her perception of relationships and her self-worth could be adversely affected.

In a related hearing in May 2017, Ryder was remanded in custody after admitting to having sex with the girl. He also faced additional charges of causing or inciting her to engage in sexual acts by sending explicit pictures and videos, though he pleaded guilty to the most serious charge. The police investigation revealed that Ryder’s contact with the girl was initiated through messages and images exchanged on their phones, which contained inappropriate content. Despite denying that the images were of the girl, Ryder admitted to sending photographs of himself exposing his genitals.

During the proceedings, Ryder’s defense lawyer, Paul Mytton, stated that he was not requesting a pre-sentence report, indicating that Ryder understood the gravity of his actions and accepted that custody was inevitable. However, the judge decided to delay sentencing until a comprehensive report could be prepared to assess Ryder’s potential risk to other children in the future. As a result, Ryder was remanded in custody once again, with the court emphasizing the need for further evaluation before final sentencing.