WILLIAM PALMER FROM YEOVIL ESCAPES JAIL AFTER SOCIAL MEDIA BREACH

In April 2014, a serious incident unfolded involving William George Palmer, a resident of Yeovil, who narrowly avoided returning to prison after breaching a court-imposed restriction on internet usage. Palmer, aged 52 and living at White Mead, Abbey Manor Park, had previously been convicted of possessing indecent images of children and sexually assaulting a minor. As part of his sentence, he was subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO), which explicitly prohibited him from accessing social networking sites and the internet in general.

Despite these clear restrictions, police investigations revealed that Palmer was actively using Facebook and Twitter accounts, which he was explicitly forbidden from doing under the terms of his SOPO. The authorities discovered these accounts during routine checks, leading to his immediate arrest. During police interviews, Palmer attempted to shift blame onto his daughter, claiming she had set up the social media profiles for him. However, the police presented irrefutable evidence of his online activity, which ultimately led Palmer to admit to the breach.

At Somerset Magistrates' Court, the prosecution, led by Daffyd Paxton, emphasized the dangers posed by such online activity, especially given Palmer’s history. Paxton stated, “We all know that one of the principal ways that paedophiles go about grooming children is on Facebook and that is why he was prohibited from using the internet.” The court heard that Palmer had accessed the internet via his mobile phone between September 1, 2013, and January 21, 2014, during which he operated Facebook and Twitter accounts in direct violation of his SOPO.

It was revealed that this was Palmer’s second breach of the order, which specifically barred him from internet access. The police investigation uncovered his social media activity after which he was arrested. During questioning, Palmer initially cast doubt on his daughter’s involvement but ultimately admitted to the breach once confronted with the evidence.

Defence solicitor Robin Weelen argued that Palmer’s breach was merely “technical,” noting that he had used his mobile phone for benign purposes such as sharing photographs of his dog with his children and maintaining contact with his former Army colleagues. Weelen emphasized that there was no evidence linking Palmer’s social media activity to any inappropriate conduct involving children.

He also highlighted Palmer’s criminal history, which included a 2005 conviction for possessing indecent photographs of children and a subsequent 2010 conviction that resulted in a 16-month prison sentence. Weelen clarified that Palmer had not attempted to blame his daughter for the setup of the social media accounts but acknowledged that she had done so, knowing his restrictions under the SOPO.

While the prosecution had suggested that Palmer should be sentenced at Taunton Crown Court, the magistrates decided against this. Instead, they imposed a community order lasting 36 months, which required Palmer to participate in the Thames Valley Sex Offender Programme. Additionally, he was ordered to pay costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £60. The court’s decision reflected a focus on rehabilitation and monitoring, rather than incarceration, despite the serious nature of his breach and past convictions.