THOMAS CONWAY AND DAVID MCGILTON FROM PREHEN SENTENCED FOR SEX OFFENCES AGAINST 15-YEAR-OLD BOY IN LONDONDERRY

In June 2004, two men from Londonderry, Thomas Jarlath Conway, aged 41, and David Neil McGilton, aged 34, both residents of Summerhill Park in the Prehen area, appeared before the court to face serious allegations related to sexual offences committed against a 15-year-old boy. The case drew significant attention due to the nature of the offences and the circumstances under which they occurred.

Both men admitted to engaging in sexual activities with the minor, whom they had initially contacted through the internet. The court was informed that the two defendants had made contact with the boy online and had arranged to meet him in person. The teenager, who was nearly 16 at the time, willingly traveled to the defendants' residence, where the offences took place. The incidents all occurred on the same day in 2003, at the men’s home in Londonderry.

Following the incident, the boy’s mother became concerned and contacted the police several weeks later. An investigation was launched, during which authorities discovered evidence of child pornography on the boy’s computer, further implicating the defendants. When questioned by law enforcement, both Conway and McGilton claimed they were unaware of the boy’s true age, asserting they believed he was older.

Judge Corinne Philpott presided over the case and addressed the court regarding the sentencing. She noted that the boy was a willing participant in the events and that there was no evidence to suggest coercion or violence was involved. The judge emphasized that the defendants had escaped immediate imprisonment because of these factors. She also pointed out that probation reports indicated both men posed a low risk of re-offending and did not present a threat to society.

Despite this, Judge Philpott made it clear that the defendants had exploited the victim’s trust and youth. As part of their sentences, both men were placed on the sex offenders register for a period of five years. McGilton was sentenced to four years in prison, but this sentence was suspended for five years, meaning he would not serve time unless he reoffended within that period. Conway received a two-year sentence, also suspended for five years, under similar conditions.

In her remarks, the judge highlighted the seriousness of the offences but balanced this with the circumstances, including the victim’s apparent willingness and the absence of violence. The case underscores ongoing concerns about internet-facilitated crimes and the importance of vigilance in protecting minors from exploitation.