STEVEN FROST FROM BIRMINGHAM, CORBY, AND LEICESTER SENTENCED FOR SEX OFFENCES AND BREACHES

In a case that highlights ongoing concerns about repeat offenders and the challenges of managing sex offenders within the criminal justice system, Steven Frost, a man with a long history of offences related to indecent images of children, faced a serious legal judgment at Leicester Crown Court. Frost, who has previously been convicted of similar crimes, was once again brought before the court in February of the previous year after police in Leicestershire uncovered him living at an address in Corby, despite having been monitored previously.

Leicestershire Police, who had been tracking Frost but had lost contact with him, acted on intelligence that led to his arrest. During the arrest, officers seized a mobile phone and two tablets, requesting Frost to provide the passwords so they could examine the devices for illegal content. Frost, however, refused to cooperate, declining to answer questions during the initial interviews and later claiming he had forgotten the passwords. This refusal to assist the police in accessing his devices became a central issue in his sentencing.

At the hearing held on a recent Friday, Judge Ebraham Mooncey presided over Frost’s case, which involved violations of the sex offenders register requirements—specifically, failing to keep his address details current—and multiple breaches of a court order that mandated his cooperation with police investigations into his online activity. Frost, aged 46, was found to have breached these conditions repeatedly, leading to his current sentencing.

Frost’s legal representative, Hamilton Eddy, argued for a non-custodial sentence, emphasizing his client’s complex psychological issues, including depression, personality disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Eddy referenced a psychological report that described Frost as someone who tends to shut himself off emotionally, suggesting that this mental state was the reason behind his refusal to cooperate with police and unlock his devices. He further argued that earlier diagnosis and support might have mitigated some of Frost’s criminal behavior, implying that his previous convictions were symptoms of untreated mental health issues.

Despite these pleas, Judge Mooncey sentenced Frost to two years and two months in prison. The judge was clear in his stance, stating that Frost could not reasonably blame his refusal to cooperate on his mental health. The judge remarked, “The idea you were somehow under a disability when you refused to provide access to your devices is fanciful in my view.” He acknowledged Frost’s recent recognition of the need for help but emphasized that such assistance would have to wait until after serving his sentence. The judge concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to uphold justice.

Throughout his criminal history, Frost has demonstrated a pattern of breaching court orders. His first conviction in 2007 was followed by a breach in 2009, which resulted in a 12-month jail term after he was found with indecent images of children. In 2011, he again breached court orders, leading to a 24-month sentence. His criminal record was further extended in 2014 when he was jailed for three years and four months after breaching orders and being charged with nine counts of possessing child sexual abuse images and three counts of common assault. A subsequent breach in 2016 resulted in a community order and unpaid work.

Frost’s movements and compliance with notification requirements became increasingly problematic. In 2017, police lost contact with him after he moved from Leicester to Corby, where he was living with a female partner. Despite being notified of his location, he was arrested in Corby in April 2017. His failure to adhere to the conditions of his release continued, culminating in his latest breach in November of the previous year, which has kept him in custody since then. His repeated violations underscore the difficulties authorities face in managing offenders with complex psychological and behavioral issues, especially when they refuse to cooperate with investigations or comply with legal obligations.