MICHAEL CRYER'S SHOCKING CRIMES IN LEYLAND: FROM PAEDOPHILE TO PREDATOR

In October 2010, a disturbing case unfolded involving Michael Cryer, a 26-year-old man from Leyland, who was caught attempting to groom a young girl for marriage and engaging in inappropriate online communications. The incident highlighted the ongoing dangers posed by individuals with a history of sexual offenses and the challenges faced by victims and their families.

Earlier that year, Cryer, who had previously been convicted of sexually touching two young girls in November 2008, befriended a 13-year-old girl through the popular social networking site Facebook. Despite being aware of her age, Cryer continued to send her sexually suggestive messages and texts, fostering an illicit online relationship that raised serious concerns about his intentions.

The situation came to light when the girl went missing from her home in Leyland. Her mother, concerned and suspicious, began scrutinizing her computer accounts and diary entries. During this investigation, she discovered messages on her daughter's computer and a diary entry revealing Cryer's disturbing proposal: he asked her daughter to marry him once she turned 16. This revelation prompted her to contact the police immediately.

Fortunately, the girl was found safe and unharmed, staying with friends rather than with Cryer. Law enforcement officers responded swiftly, arresting Cryer and conducting searches of his residence, including his computer and mobile phones. The evidence collected led to his prosecution.

At Preston Crown Court, Cryer pleaded guilty to inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. His sentencing included a two-year community order, a requirement to register as a sex offender, and a ban on unsupervised contact with children. The court's decision sparked outrage among the victim's family, especially the mother, who expressed her frustration and anger at the leniency of the sentence.

The mother, who resides in Hampshire, voiced her disappointment, stating, “I expected him to go to prison and I think my daughter could move on quicker if he was not out – she thought he was going to prison too. I cannot understand how he is walking the streets. It has destroyed my daughter’s life.” She described her daughter as once academically successful but now struggling academically and emotionally, having become truant and distrustful of others. The family has been torn apart, with her daughter now living with her father.

She further revealed that her daughter, described as “quite naive,” was deeply affected by Cryer’s messages. The girl had believed Cryer was related to her family, calling him “Daddy’s number one,” and had even planned to meet him in May, believing he would marry her and have children. The mother recounted her shock upon discovering these details and her daughter’s initial blame towards her for reporting Cryer.

During police interviews, Cryer admitted to knowing the girl’s age but claimed he had never met her in person. From his home in Leyland, Cryer told the Evening Post, “I regret what I’ve done but didn’t know at the time what I was doing was wrong. I know it was now and I have learnt my lesson. Now I just want to get on with my life.” When questioned about his previous conviction, he explained, “That was about approaching minors but this was about communicating with them. Now I know that I cannot do that either.” Cryer also cited a traffic collision at age nine that left him with speech and learning difficulties, which he said contributed to his social struggles.

During the court proceedings, Joanne Shepherd, representing Cryer, argued that he used the internet as a refuge and a way to make friends. However, the judge, Recorder Anthony Russell QC, sentenced Cryer to a two-year community order, including supervision and a five-year sexual offences prevention order. His internet use was also restricted. The judge acknowledged Cryer’s early guilty plea and his time spent in custody on remand, but emphasized the seriousness of grooming and the importance of accountability, especially given his prior conviction. The court made it clear that such behavior is a criminal offense that warrants punishment.

In a related case from December 2008, Cryer’s previous conviction for indecently touching two young girls aged 11 and 12 drew public outrage. Despite pleading not guilty and giving evidence, Cryer was sentenced to a community order and ordered to pay only £50 in compensation to each victim. The families of the victims expressed their dissatisfaction with the leniency, emphasizing the trauma inflicted on their children and the need for stricter punishment to prevent future offenses. The mother of one girl described the incident as a traumatic experience that has significantly impacted her daughter’s sense of safety and freedom, while the other mother highlighted her concern for her naive daughter’s well-being and the importance of monitoring offenders like Cryer.