SAMUEL DAVIES FROM OLLERTON BANNED FROM INTERNET USE AFTER SEXUAL HARM ORDER FOR CHILD ABUSE INCIDENT

In July 2016, Samuel Thomas Davies, a resident of Ollerton, was subjected to a court-imposed sexual harm prevention order following a disturbing incident involving a minor. The case stemmed from an event that took place on June 15 of the previous year, involving a young person aged between 13 and 15 years old. For legal reasons, the victim's identity has not been disclosed.

During a hearing at Mansfield Magistrates’ Court, Davies, aged 26, admitted to the charges related to attempting to coerce a minor into watching a sexual act. As part of the court’s measures to prevent further harm, Davies was ordered to adhere to a series of strict conditions designed to restrict his interactions with minors and regulate his internet usage.

The court’s order, which is set to remain in effect for five years, explicitly prohibits Davies from having any unsupervised contact with individuals under the age of 16. Such contact is only permissible if it is unavoidable, with the explicit permission of the minor’s legal guardian, and only if the guardian is fully aware of Davies’ conviction and the court’s restrictions. Additionally, social services must be informed and approve any contact or cohabitation involving minors under 16.

Furthermore, Davies is barred from residing in the same household as anyone under 16 unless social services are notified and give their consent. The restrictions extend to his use of digital devices; he is not allowed to access the internet or take digital images unless he makes the device available for police inspection. Importantly, he is also ordered not to delete his internet browsing history, which could be relevant for ongoing monitoring and investigations.

Another critical stipulation is that Davies cannot contact anyone under 16 via the internet or any digital means. This comprehensive set of restrictions aims to prevent any further attempts to engage with minors online or offline, reflecting the seriousness with which the court has addressed his offending behavior.