November 2017

Darlington sex offender fails in bid to have restrictions on contact with children lifted

A MAN who admitted downloading more than 3,000 indecent images failed to have restrictions on his contact with children lifted after police expressed “justifiable” concern.

Jeffrey Binks hoped to vary an indefinite sexual offences prevention order imposed on him in 2010 after he a received six month jail sentence, suspended for two months, in July of that year for making and possessing 3,337 images and video clips.

But his application floundered after a court heard how he had befriended a family who had a young child without telling them of his conviction.

The 66-year-old, who pleaded guilty to 16 specimen charges of making indecent images of children and one of possession, also sent the child a birthday card and was subsequently cautioned by police in November last year.

James Kemp, representing the police, said Binks, from Darlington, had also signed a statement as recently as June in which he falsely stated that there had been no problems with his compliance of the order.

Mr Kemp said Binks had been underhand and disingenuous in befriending the child’s parents with the possibility of gaining access to the child and had “moved on” from watching indecent images.

Amrit Jandoo, for Binks, previously of Herbert Street, Darlington, said the terms of the order had become “oppressive” as he went about his daily life.

Under the order Binks cannot have contact or communication with a child other than inadvertently and where it is not reasonably avoidable, or if it is with the consent of a parent or guardian who has knowledge of his convictions and the express approval of local social services.

The Recorder of Middlesbrough, Judge Simon Bourne-Arton, who heard the application, said police, who opposed Binks’ efforts, had justifiable concern about any change in the order.

He said: “He has shown unhealthy interest in children which has been followed by contact with a child.”

The judge said Mr Jandoo had presented a well-made argument, but he was against it and ruled that the prohibition remained in force.

Advertisements