PHILIP GRAHAM FROM GARSTON SENTENCED FOR LIFE ANKLE TAG AFTER PREDATORY MESSAGES TO GIRLS AS YOUNG AS 12 IN LIVERPOOL

In December 2016, a disturbing case unfolded at Liverpool Crown Court involving Philip Kevin Graham, a man with a troubling history of sexual offenses, who was sentenced to serve two years in prison for repeatedly breaching court orders designed to protect children from his predatory behavior.

Graham, who is known to have no fixed address but is associated with Garston, was found guilty of five violations of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO). This order had originally been put in place following a sexual assault he committed in 2011 involving a young girl. The court heard that Graham’s repeated breaches demonstrated a blatant disregard for legal restrictions meant to safeguard minors.

During the sentencing, Judge Steven Everett expressed serious concern about Graham’s potential threat to the public, especially children. He ordered that Graham be fitted with an electronic monitoring device, commonly known as an ankle tag, for the rest of his life. This rare and stringent measure was justified by the judge’s statement: “I’m quite satisfied you are a real danger to the public.” The judge’s decision underscores the severity of Graham’s actions and the ongoing risk he poses.

Graham’s criminal record includes three previous convictions for indecent assault, further highlighting his pattern of offending. The latest incident that led to his conviction involved him messaging a 12-year-old girl on Facebook on May 21 of the previous year. In the message, he asked, “Hi, will you go out on a date with me, how old are you?” This inappropriate communication immediately drew the ire of the girl’s mother, who responded with outrage, branding Graham a “pervert.”

Prosecutor Geoffrey Lowe detailed the incident to the court, explaining that the girl had no prior contact with Graham and had not sent him a friend request. She was unaware of his identity until she received the message. Recognizing the inappropriate nature of the message, she contacted her mother, who swiftly took control of her Facebook account. The mother responded with a strongly worded message, identifying herself as the girl’s mother and warning Graham that her daughter was only 12. She also accused him of being a “pervert” and threatened to take further action.

Following the incident, police investigations led them to Graham’s mother’s address, where he was found. Graham claimed he did not have Facebook and suggested that his phone had been stolen, implying that someone else might have used his details. However, phone records contradicted his claim, showing that he had made a call to his doctor shortly after the message was sent.

Despite these denials, Graham’s behavior escalated. While under investigation, he created a second Facebook account, pretending to be a 16-year-old, and contacted four other girls aged between 13 and 15. The messages he sent were similarly inappropriate, asking questions like “would you like to be my friend?” and “how old are you?”

When questioned about his actions, Graham claimed he would never meet the girls in person and attributed his behavior to loneliness, stating, “I’m just lonely.” However, Judge Everett was clear in his assessment, stating, “I have no doubt that if you were able to persuade one of these girls to meet you, you would have met them. Your behaviour in the past makes it quite clear that you would have done so.”

Graham was informed that he could apply to have the indefinite SHPO, which restricts his contact with minors, amended or lifted in the future. Nonetheless, the judge emphasized that such a change was highly unlikely unless Graham could convincingly demonstrate that he no longer posed a risk to young girls, a prospect the court deemed improbable.