MARK HOLCROFT FROM COLWYN BAY CAUGHT GROOMING 14-YEAR-OLD BOY IN INTERNET PLOT NEAR LIVERPOOL

In a disturbing case that has sent shockwaves through the community of Colwyn Bay, 40-year-old Mark Holcroft was found guilty of engaging in online grooming activities targeting a 14-year-old boy. The incident unfolded after Holcroft, who resides on Highfield Road in Colwyn Bay, used a gay chat room on the internet to initiate sexually explicit conversations with the young teenager.

According to court reports, Holcroft not only engaged in these inappropriate online exchanges but also made two separate attempts to meet the boy in person. The first attempt was not detailed in the court proceedings, but the second occurred on November 25, 2007. During this second attempt, the teenager, suspicious of Holcroft’s intentions, contacted the police, leading to Holcroft’s arrest in the vicinity of Liverpool.

When law enforcement officials raided Holcroft’s residence, they uncovered a significant cache of illegal material on his computer. The police discovered a total of 14,189 obscene images, categorized across various levels of severity. Specifically, there were more than 13,000 images classified as category one, 829 images in category two, three images in category three, 199 in category four, and 53 at the most severe level, category five. These findings underscored the extent of Holcroft’s possession of child pornography. It is noteworthy that Holcroft has a prior conviction related to child pornography, which further complicates his criminal profile.

During the trial at Liverpool Crown Court, Holcroft denied any grooming activities and claimed that his trip to Liverpool was motivated solely by curiosity. He insisted that he had no intention of meeting the boy for sexual purposes and suggested that his journey was an attempt to provoke police into arresting him, believing it to be some form of entrapment.

His defense lawyer, Simon Berkson, argued that psychiatric assessments indicated Holcroft did not suffer from mental health issues and was not considered dangerous. Berkson emphasized that the young boy involved was not placed in any real danger, citing the “public-spirited actions” of the teenager as a protective factor. He also pointed out that Holcroft had been forthcoming during his testimony and that there had been no further offenses committed between his arrest and conviction.

However, the presiding judge, Judge Robert Warnock, delivered a stern sentence upon Holcroft. He stated that the jury’s verdict confirmed Holcroft’s guilt in possessing indecent images and engaging in sexual grooming. The judge expressed his belief that Holcroft’s attempt to meet the boy was not accidental but driven by a clear intent to carry out the acts discussed online. Judge Warnock also highlighted the seriousness of Holcroft’s criminal history, noting that in July 2000, he was placed on probation for three years for offenses nearly identical to those for which he was now convicted.

As part of his sentence, Holcroft was ordered to register as a sex offender indefinitely and was subjected to an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order. The case has once again raised concerns about the dangers posed by individuals with a history of child exploitation and the importance of vigilant law enforcement to protect vulnerable minors from online predators.