SEAN MCELHATTON FROM SIXMILECROSS ESCAPES PRISON AFTER SENDING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT TEXTS TO TEENAGE GIRLS IN DUNGANNON
| Red Rose Database
Sixmilecross Child Sexual Abuser
In a case that has sent shockwaves through the community of Sixmilecross, Sean McElhatton, a 40-year-old man residing on Main Street, was brought before Dungannon Crown Court to face serious allegations involving the sending of sexually explicit messages to underage girls. The incident, which took place between November 2011 and January 2012, involved McElhatton communicating with three girls aged between 13 and 16, with two of the messages containing explicit sexual content.
Despite the gravity of his actions, McElhatton was spared a prison sentence after the court was convinced that he did not attempt to meet any of his young victims in person. Instead, he was sentenced to a three-year period of probation, during which he is required to participate in a Community Sex Offenders group work programme. Additionally, he has been placed on the Sex Offenders Register for a period of five years, a measure designed to monitor and manage his potential risk to the community.
Furthermore, Judge Geoffrey Miller QC imposed a five-year Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) on McElhatton. This order explicitly prohibits him from having any form of contact or communication with individuals under the age of 18 and mandates that he remain under the supervision of a designated risk manager. The court’s decision underscores the seriousness with which the judicial system views such offences, even when no physical meeting occurs.
During the proceedings, the court heard that McElhatton’s messages to the three girls were of a sexual nature, with two of the girls receiving particularly explicit texts. He was convicted on charges of attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity and two counts of harassment. The judge noted that the content of the messages demonstrated a clear understanding on McElhatton’s part of what he was doing, indicating deliberate intent.
In his defence, McElhatton’s lawyer, Ian Turkington, instructed by solicitor Padhraic Cunningham, argued that his client’s issues with alcohol had played a significant role in his behaviour, claiming that intoxication had “desensitised him and allowed him to make the texts.” The defence also highlighted that McElhatton never revealed his identity to the victims nor attempted to meet them, which, according to the lawyer, was a factor that prevented a harsher sentence such as imprisonment.
Mr. Turkington further pointed out that the sex offenders programme endorsed by other judges could aid McElhatton’s rehabilitation. The court was also informed that McElhatton has faced social ostracism from his local community and his own family as a consequence of his actions, reflecting the widespread condemnation of his behaviour.
Judge Miller emphasized that it was the court’s duty to address the issues stemming from McElhatton’s offending. He questioned whether a prison sentence of only a few months would have been sufficient to resolve the underlying problems, suggesting that such a short term would not address the sexual motivations involved. The judge described McElhatton’s conduct as “entirely inappropriate” and acknowledged the possibility of underlying sexual motives driving his actions.
Finally, the judge highlighted that the probation order and participation in the sex offenders programme would require a high level of commitment from McElhatton, indicating the court’s focus on both punishment and rehabilitation in this case.
Despite the gravity of his actions, McElhatton was spared a prison sentence after the court was convinced that he did not attempt to meet any of his young victims in person. Instead, he was sentenced to a three-year period of probation, during which he is required to participate in a Community Sex Offenders group work programme. Additionally, he has been placed on the Sex Offenders Register for a period of five years, a measure designed to monitor and manage his potential risk to the community.
Furthermore, Judge Geoffrey Miller QC imposed a five-year Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) on McElhatton. This order explicitly prohibits him from having any form of contact or communication with individuals under the age of 18 and mandates that he remain under the supervision of a designated risk manager. The court’s decision underscores the seriousness with which the judicial system views such offences, even when no physical meeting occurs.
During the proceedings, the court heard that McElhatton’s messages to the three girls were of a sexual nature, with two of the girls receiving particularly explicit texts. He was convicted on charges of attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity and two counts of harassment. The judge noted that the content of the messages demonstrated a clear understanding on McElhatton’s part of what he was doing, indicating deliberate intent.
In his defence, McElhatton’s lawyer, Ian Turkington, instructed by solicitor Padhraic Cunningham, argued that his client’s issues with alcohol had played a significant role in his behaviour, claiming that intoxication had “desensitised him and allowed him to make the texts.” The defence also highlighted that McElhatton never revealed his identity to the victims nor attempted to meet them, which, according to the lawyer, was a factor that prevented a harsher sentence such as imprisonment.
Mr. Turkington further pointed out that the sex offenders programme endorsed by other judges could aid McElhatton’s rehabilitation. The court was also informed that McElhatton has faced social ostracism from his local community and his own family as a consequence of his actions, reflecting the widespread condemnation of his behaviour.
Judge Miller emphasized that it was the court’s duty to address the issues stemming from McElhatton’s offending. He questioned whether a prison sentence of only a few months would have been sufficient to resolve the underlying problems, suggesting that such a short term would not address the sexual motivations involved. The judge described McElhatton’s conduct as “entirely inappropriate” and acknowledged the possibility of underlying sexual motives driving his actions.
Finally, the judge highlighted that the probation order and participation in the sex offenders programme would require a high level of commitment from McElhatton, indicating the court’s focus on both punishment and rehabilitation in this case.