MARc NICHOLAS FROM RODMARTON JAILED FOR BREACHING SEX OFFENDER ORDER IN CIRENCESTER
| Red Rose Database
Rodmarton Sexual Abuser
In September 2018, a serious legal case unfolded involving Marc Nicholas, a resident of Rodmarton near Cirencester, who found himself back in court facing allegations of breaching a court-imposed sexual harm prevention order. The incident highlighted the ongoing challenges and risks associated with managing convicted sex offenders and the importance of strict adherence to court orders designed to protect vulnerable individuals.
Marc Nicholas, aged 30, appeared before Gloucester Crown Court to admit to multiple violations of his legal restrictions. Specifically, he pleaded guilty to two separate breaches of the sexual harm prevention order and a failure to update his details on the sex offender register, covering the period from July of the previous year through March of this year. His actions led to a sentence of one year in prison.
It is important to note that Nicholas had been subjected to these indefinite restrictions following his 2006 conviction for offenses committed against a girl under the age of 13. These orders explicitly prohibit him from being in the company of children without the explicit permission of a parent or guardian who is fully aware of his criminal history. Despite these clear restrictions, Nicholas had a history of violating them, with the prosecutor Grace Flynn informing the court that he had previously breached the order on three occasions, the most recent being in 2016, which resulted in a jail sentence.
In the latest breach, Nicholas was entrusted with the care of a friend's baby while the child's mother was hospitalized. The woman, who was unaware of Nicholas's past offenses, allowed him and his partner to look after her child. Her trust was exploited when Nicholas bathed the infant and engaged in other typical childcare activities, despite his legal restrictions.
Police officers, conducting a routine check, requested to see Nicholas's phone. During this inspection, they discovered Facebook messages that linked to the child's mother. The messages revealed that the mother was 'rather upset' upon receiving a police call about Nicholas. She explained to officers that she had asked her Facebook contacts to remove posts depicting her family outing, stating, “Everyone is checking up, and it f**ks things up.” She believed these posts related to ongoing family court proceedings and had no idea that Nicholas was a registered sex offender.
Judge James Watson QC emphasized that Nicholas's repeated breaches were a significant concern. He pointed out that the previous violations, especially the one in 2016, demonstrated a pattern of deliberate disregard for court orders. The judge expressed regret that Nicholas did not recognize the importance of complying with the restrictions after his earlier imprisonment.
Furthermore, the judge highlighted the distress caused to the child's mother, who was never informed of Nicholas's criminal background. She had entrusted her young child to Nicholas's care over an extended period, unaware of the potential danger. The court described Nicholas's actions as a 'deliberate and prolonged disregard of the court's orders,' which posed a serious risk to the safety of children.
In conclusion, the judge stated that only an immediate custodial sentence could serve as an appropriate response to Nicholas's repeated violations. Consequently, he was sentenced to 12 months in prison, underscoring the court's stance on the importance of safeguarding children and maintaining the integrity of court orders designed to prevent harm.
Marc Nicholas, aged 30, appeared before Gloucester Crown Court to admit to multiple violations of his legal restrictions. Specifically, he pleaded guilty to two separate breaches of the sexual harm prevention order and a failure to update his details on the sex offender register, covering the period from July of the previous year through March of this year. His actions led to a sentence of one year in prison.
It is important to note that Nicholas had been subjected to these indefinite restrictions following his 2006 conviction for offenses committed against a girl under the age of 13. These orders explicitly prohibit him from being in the company of children without the explicit permission of a parent or guardian who is fully aware of his criminal history. Despite these clear restrictions, Nicholas had a history of violating them, with the prosecutor Grace Flynn informing the court that he had previously breached the order on three occasions, the most recent being in 2016, which resulted in a jail sentence.
In the latest breach, Nicholas was entrusted with the care of a friend's baby while the child's mother was hospitalized. The woman, who was unaware of Nicholas's past offenses, allowed him and his partner to look after her child. Her trust was exploited when Nicholas bathed the infant and engaged in other typical childcare activities, despite his legal restrictions.
Police officers, conducting a routine check, requested to see Nicholas's phone. During this inspection, they discovered Facebook messages that linked to the child's mother. The messages revealed that the mother was 'rather upset' upon receiving a police call about Nicholas. She explained to officers that she had asked her Facebook contacts to remove posts depicting her family outing, stating, “Everyone is checking up, and it f**ks things up.” She believed these posts related to ongoing family court proceedings and had no idea that Nicholas was a registered sex offender.
Judge James Watson QC emphasized that Nicholas's repeated breaches were a significant concern. He pointed out that the previous violations, especially the one in 2016, demonstrated a pattern of deliberate disregard for court orders. The judge expressed regret that Nicholas did not recognize the importance of complying with the restrictions after his earlier imprisonment.
Furthermore, the judge highlighted the distress caused to the child's mother, who was never informed of Nicholas's criminal background. She had entrusted her young child to Nicholas's care over an extended period, unaware of the potential danger. The court described Nicholas's actions as a 'deliberate and prolonged disregard of the court's orders,' which posed a serious risk to the safety of children.
In conclusion, the judge stated that only an immediate custodial sentence could serve as an appropriate response to Nicholas's repeated violations. Consequently, he was sentenced to 12 months in prison, underscoring the court's stance on the importance of safeguarding children and maintaining the integrity of court orders designed to prevent harm.