Colchester
Sexual Abuser
1,404
Views
0
Comments
RR69312
COLCHESTER SEX OFFENDER BREACHES COURT ORDER AFTER SELLING TABLET
A sex offender has appeared in court after he sold a Samsung tablet he was required to show police officers each time they visited his property.
Matthew Palmer, who has been on the sex offenders' register since 2012, is now permitted to use any device capable of accessing the internet unless it can show its history.
Under a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO), Palmer, of Old Rectory Drive, Colchester, must also make devices available to police on request.
In November last year, Palmer failed to produce his Samsung Galaxy tablet to police because he had sold it without prior inspection.
He admitted the offence in court.
Palmer, a 38-year-old lorry driver, explained that he sold the device due to financial difficulties, as he and his partner needed funds because they were moving and their current landlord wanted to sell the property.
The court was told that Palmer’s actions were caused by negligence and not deliberate breach.
Mitigation argued that this was his first breach since being on the register.
The case was adjourned for a pre-sentence report, and Palmer's decision to sell the tablet without considering the SHPO's requirements was viewed with disapproval by the magistrates, who questioned whether it was negligence or lack of vigilance.
The case remains ongoing pending sentencing.
Court Outcome
Conviction and Sentencing Details
Sentenced
Detected legal outcome
ince 2012, is now permitted to use any device capable of accessing the internet unless it can show its history. Under a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO), Palmer, of Old Rectory Drive, Colchester, must also make devices available to po...
Court order
Under a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO), Palmer, of Old Rectory Drive, Colchester, must also make devices available to police on request
Court order
The case was adjourned for a pre-sentence report, and Palmer's decision to sell the tablet without considering the SHPO's requirements was viewed with disapproval by the magistrates, who questioned whether it was negligence or lack of vigilance