PETER ANDREWS AND SOUTH OXHEY SEX OFFENDER REMAINS AT RISK OF RE-OFFENDING

In May 2008, a sexual offender named Peter Andrews, 41, from Barnhurst Path in South Oxhey, was subject to a court order that bans him from living with anyone who has children unless they are aware of his past. The order was issued at Watford Magistrates Court to prevent him from re-offending and to restrict his contact with children.

Andrews, who was convicted in 1998 for a serious sexual assault on a child, denied any sexual interest in minors and challenged the civil application by the police. His probation officer reported that Andrews had failed to engage with the sex offenders' treatment programme and that last year, concerns persisted about his lack of acceptance that he was a paedophile.

The court was informed that Andrews was considered a ‘high risk’ of re-offending, although he insisted he posed no danger to children. Due to his depression, treatment is challenging, as he becomes distressed easily, and a comprehensive psychological assessment is needed to determine his true risk. Nevertheless, Andrews resists ‘intrusion into his psyche,’ maintaining he ‘denies he has any sexual interest in children,’ according to probation.

District Judge Peter Crabtree stated: ‘In 1998 Mr Andrews was convicted of a serious sexual assault. He says he has not committed a sexual offence since. This is his sole conviction of that type. He says his concealment of his past from adults he is having a relationship with is due to embarrassment of the position he finds himself in.’

Judge Crabtree added: ‘Reports show that he still has to come to terms with the offence in 1998, and until he does so, probation suggest he remains a high risk. Since 1998, his behaviour has been consistent with denial, which makes the order necessary in this case.’

The five-year order bans Andrews from contacting three named individuals or their children. He is not allowed to live with anyone under 16 unless they are aware of his 1998 conviction for indecent assault, and he cannot participate in any paid or voluntary activity involving children under 16.

Additionally, Andrews attempted to prevent publicity by requesting to exclude journalists from court, claiming he had been threatened, harassed, received nuisance calls, and experienced vandalism. However, a reporter challenged his request. After consultation, District Judge Crabtree ruled in favor of ‘open justice,’ emphasizing the importance of reporting on court proceedings.

He explained: ‘This is a difficult case in relation to publicity. However, the press have the right to report on all matters, with limited exceptions, based on open justice. If I ruled that the press could not report this case, it would imply that sensitive cases cannot be publicly reported, which is unacceptable.’