KEVIN HINCKS FROM CHRISTCHURCH BREAKS COURT ORDER AGAIN AND TRIES TO TRAVEL WITHOUT NOTICE
In a troubling development, Kevin Anthony Hincks, a 46-year-old resident of Christchurch, has once again violated a court-imposed order designed to protect the community from his actions.Hincks, who has been under a sexual harm prevention order since April 2019, was found to have breached the restrictions for the second time, prompting serious legal consequences.
Hincks was alleged to have violated the terms of his sexual harm prevention order by possessing two internet-enabled mobile phones without notifying the relevant police authorities.
This incident occurred on May 4, and it raised concerns given his previous history and the restrictions placed upon him.
When he appeared before Poole Magistrates’ Court on June 8 to face the charges, he pleaded guilty to the single breach of the order.
The court took a stern view of the matter, especially considering this was his second breach and his failure to engage with probation services.
As a result, magistrates sentenced Hincks to 24 weeks in prison, but this sentence was suspended for 12 months, meaning he would not serve time unless he committed another breach within that period.
The court also imposed additional conditions, including a 12-week overnight curfew, and ordered him to pay a surcharge of £128 along with £85 in court costs.
Hincks’s history with the law extends beyond this recent breach.
In April 2019, he was involved in a separate case where he was ordered not to travel without informing police at least two weeks in advance.
This order was part of a broader set of restrictions following his conviction for attempting to communicate with a child for sexual gratification.
The offence was committed over a period between December 27, 2017, and November 17, 2018.
During that hearing at Poole Magistrates’ Court, Hincks, then aged 43, admitted to intentionally trying to contact a child for sexual purposes.
As part of his sentence, he was placed under a community order requiring him to participate in an accredited programme for 35 days and complete a 30-day rehabilitation activity.
Additionally, he was subjected to a sexual harm prevention order that would last for ten years, which prohibited him from activities such as deleting his internet history, having unsupervised contact with a child, or traveling outside England and Wales without providing at least 14 days’ notice to authorities.
Furthermore, Hincks was ordered to register with the police for a period of five years, ensuring ongoing monitoring of his activities.
These measures reflect the serious nature of his offences and the ongoing efforts to prevent any further harm.
Despite these restrictions, his recent breach involving possession of mobile phones without notification underscores the challenges authorities face in managing individuals with a history of sexual offences and the importance of strict enforcement of court orders to safeguard the community.
