A 59-YEAR-old man has been fined for breaching his sexual risk order.
Richard Gordon-Farleigh appeared on videolink to Worcester Magistrates Court from his home in Cotswold Road, Malvern.
John Dove, prosecuting, explained that the defendant breached the order on July 26, 2021, by speaking to someone under 18 years old who was outside his home.
Mr Dove said the offence, lasting around 15 minutes, had been caught on CCTV but the footage was not played to the court.
The prosecutor added Gordon-Farleigh had no previous convictions but did have a caution that led to him being given the sexual risk order.
A sexual risk order is a civil order that can be sought by the police against an individual who has not been convicted but who is still thought to pose a risk of harm.
Gordon-Farleigh was handed his order in April 2020 after it was sought by police, the court heard.
Belinda Ariss, defending, explained Gordon-Farleigh had not "instigated the breach" or invited them into his home.
READ MORE: 'Traffic cone man' faces jail for assaulting woman
READ MORE: See who has been in the dock at Worcester Magistrates Court
READ MORE: 'Thanks for wasting my time' 85-year-old defendant tells magistrates
READ MORE: Man, 65, caught with more than 200,000 indecent images of children
Mrs Ariss explained Gordon-Farleigh had admitted that he had spoken to the person before asking them to leave, accepting that put him in breach of his order.
She said Gordon-Farleigh was in debt following the breakdown of his marriage and was bed-bound due to ill health which was why he was unable to attend court in person.
After deliberations Carey Leonard, chairman of the magistrates bench, told Gordon-Farleigh they had listened carefully to the case and the circumstances around the offence.
Gordon-Farleigh was fined £80 and ordered to pay costs of £185 and victim surcharge of £34.
Magistrates accepted Gordon-Farleigh's offer to pay the total, £299, at a rate of £5 a week.
The chairman added magistrates were also making a fine collection order explaining to the defendant it meant bailiffs could chase the money if it was not paid.
The case was heard at the court on Monday, (April 17).
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel