STEPHEN LANCETT FROM CHIPPENHAM AND SOLIHULL ESCAPES JAIL AFTER BREACHING SEX OFFENDER ORDER
In June 2007, a man named Stephen Lancett, originally from Solihull and later residing in Chippenham, narrowly avoided imprisonment after breaching a court-mandated community order.The case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by authorities in monitoring sex offenders and ensuring compliance with court conditions.
Lancett, aged 37, had previously been convicted of grooming a 15-year-old girl for sexual activity.
His original conviction and sentencing took place at Wolverhampton Crown Court, where he was subjected to a three-year community order.
This order mandated regular supervision and participation in a sex offenders' group work program, aimed at reducing the risk of reoffending and protecting the community.
However, in June 2007, Lancett was found to have violated the terms of his community order.
The breach involved relocating from his residence on Heath Road, Elmdon Heath, Solihull, to Chelwood Close in Chippenham, Wiltshire, without notifying his assigned probation officer.
Additionally, he failed to attend a scheduled probation appointment, further breaching the conditions set by the court.
Prosecutor Robert Hodgkinson informed Warwick Crown Court that the case had been adjourned to allow probation services in Solihull and Chippenham to coordinate and provide a comprehensive report on Lancett’s compliance.
The court was also told that the authorities were considering adding a specific activities program to his supervision order, as recommended by his defense.
During the hearing, Laura Kasasian, representing Lancett, argued that the court should consider modifying the supervision order to include a specified activities program and to extend supervision under the Thames Valley sex offenders’ program.
The aim was to enhance monitoring and rehabilitation efforts.
Recorder Barry Berlin, presiding over the case, addressed Lancett directly, emphasizing the seriousness of his breach.
He stated, “You were very lucky to be given a chance to fulfill a community order rather than going to prison.
If you had been in front of me, things may have been different.” He further warned, “The point of such an order is to protect young children.
You knew that, but you moved without informing your supervising officer.” The judge’s comments underscored the importance of compliance in safeguarding vulnerable individuals and highlighted the potential consequences of failing to adhere to court-mandated conditions.
