A Wingate Paedophile, Richard Clark, with a prior jail sentence for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor initiated communication with an individual he presumed to be a 14-year-old girl earlier this year.
In March 2016, Richard Clark was sentenced to four years in jail at Cambridge Crown Court for offences involving a 13-year-old girl he encountered online in 2014.
During his last appearance at Durham Crown Court, facts of the 2014 offence were presented, in which the defendant orchestrated a meeting with the girl, visited her school, and established a romantic relationship characterised by persistent sexual advances.
Despite her rejection of those requests, he provided her with a body massage but did not proceed beyond that.
Richard Clark refuted allegations of engaging in sexual activity with a minor but was found guilty after trial. In addition to a four-year prison sentence, he was subjected to an eight-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) and indefinite notification obligations as a sex offender, pursuant to the 2016 sentencing.
A man from County Durham was ensnared by an online sting operation conducted by a vigilante organisation.
Tabitha Buck, prosecuting, informed the Durham hearing that in May of this year, just two months following the expiration of the SHPO, Richard Clark utilised an unregistered alias, North East 33, to engage online with an individual claiming to be a 14-year-old female.
Unbeknownst to Richard Clark, it was a decoy profile created by an online pedophile-hunting vigilante organisation, all members of which were over 18 years of age.
Miss Buck stated that Richard Clark initiated the correspondence by discussing his occupation as a truck driver, while the correspondent explicitly indicated that she was 14 years old and attending school.
He stated that her age was of no concern to him and enquired whether she preferred “older men.”
Richard Clark praised her profile appearance and expressed his fondness for “naughty chat,” after stating his want to kiss her and enquiring if she “engaged in self-pleasure.”
He proposed transitioning their chat to WhatsApp, enabling her to view him, and provided her with his mobile phone number.
Miss Buck stated that, via WhatsApp, he expressed his affection for her and his want to spend more time together.
The dialogue persisted until Richard Clark obstructed the profile.
The vigilante group provided the police with details of the chats, leading to Richard Clark’s detention prior to his questioning at Durham station on May 21, during which he denied any wrongdoing.
The 39-year-old defendant from Chillerton Way, Wingate, denied a charge of attempted sexual communication with a minor during his appearance before magistrates on May 22, and upheld that plea at his initial crown court hearing in June, when a trial date was established.
Prior to the trial, Richard Clark altered his plea to guilty during a court hearing on October 17.
The hearing was postponed to facilitate the production of a background report on him by the Probation Service.
Dr. Chris Wood, counsel for the prisoner, stated at the sentencing hearing that the recent offences occurred within a brief timeframe and that there was no effort to obscure the communications.
He acknowledges that he first failed to confess to his wrongdoing, but he reassessed his stance and informed his solicitors of his intention to alter his plea.
“That, at a minimum, indicates remorse and contrition, as evidenced in the probation report.
The crime occurred after the initial SHPO, during which he adhered fully, with no violations.
Dr. Wood stated that the distinctions between the prior offence, which Richard Clark contested at trial, and the current proceedings are that he has now acknowledged his wrongdoing and, in this instance, there was no tangible victim.
The defendant maintains familial support, as he is the primary provider, however has been in detention since altering his plea to guilty on October 17.
Judge Nathan Adams stated that the defendant’s criminal past is “particularly significant” in this matter.
The judge stated that although Richard Clark adhered to the SHPO after the 2016 case, he began to offend in a similar manner within months of its expiration, mistakenly believing he was conversing with a 14-year-old girl, ignorant that it was a decoy.
“Fortunately, it was a ruse, and it was promptly reported to the police.”
The judge stated that if it had included a genuine 14-year-old, “the risk of harm would have been substantial.”
He stated that the timing of the conduct constituted “an aggravating feature of the case.”
Judge Adams imposed a 12-month prison sentence, stating that it could not be suspended due to the defendant’s prior crime.
I empathise with your family; nonetheless, you have inflicted pain upon them.
“The severity of the situation warrants an immediate prison sentence.”
The judge imposed a second ten-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO), and Richard Clark was also had to register as a sex offender for the same duration.
If you or anyone you know have been affected by the people highlighted in this article, then please report those individuals to the Police on 101 (999 if an emergency) or visit their online resources for further details of the options for reporting a crime. You can also make a report at Crimestoppers should you wish to be completely anonymous. There is help available on our support links page.