MICHAEL SIVITER SHAMES DERBY WITH DISTURBING ONLINE PREDATION INCIDENTS
In September 2016, a disturbing case emerged involving a man from Derby who engaged in inappropriate and illegal online communications with a young girl, raising serious concerns about online safety and predatory behavior.The individual, identified as Michael Siviter, was found to have contacted a girl he believed to be 15 years old through social media platforms, specifically Facebook.
The conversation quickly took a troubling turn as Siviter, who was 22 at the time, also communicated with her via BlackBerry Messenger, probing her about her age and making inappropriate comments.
According to the prosecution, represented by David Outterside at Derby Crown Court, the girl initially claimed she was about to turn 16.
However, it was later established that she was only 14 years old at the time of the exchanges.
The court heard that Siviter, residing on Somersall Close in Shelton Lock, Derby, then proceeded to ask her whether she would send him 'sexy pictures' while she was undressing, a request that was both invasive and illegal.
Further details revealed that Siviter made inappropriate remarks about her physical appearance, specifically commenting on the size of her bottom.
The court was also informed that he inquired whether she had been with a white boy before, to which she responded affirmatively, stating she had been with many.
During these exchanges, Siviter sent a graphic image of his genitals to the girl and repeatedly asked her to send similar private images of herself.
These messages, which included explicit images and sexual propositions, were eventually seen by someone else who reported the matter to the police.
Following this, Siviter was interviewed by law enforcement officers and subsequently pleaded guilty to charges related to attempting to incite a girl aged 13 to 15 to engage in sexual activity.
During the court proceedings, Siviter's defense lawyer, Jonathan Hullis, expressed that his client was 'disgusted and ashamed' of his actions.
He also noted that an analysis of Siviter's phone revealed no additional incriminating evidence and emphasized that this behavior was 'out of character' for him.
Hullis stated that Siviter believed the girl was nearly 16, as she had told him, and that he wished to return to his normal, uneventful life.
Judge Recorder Adrian Redgrave acknowledged that this was a 'one-off offence' and highlighted that Siviter had no prior criminal record.
As a result, he sentenced Siviter to a three-year community order, requiring him to complete 50 hours of unpaid work within a year.
Additionally, Siviter was placed under a sexual harm prevention order for five years, aimed at preventing any future offending behavior and protecting the community from similar threats.
