Essex sex offender Alastair Dixon jailed for breaching sexual harm orders

A ‘sophisticated’ sex offender tried to pervert the course of justice by sharing indecent images of children from a fake email address under the name of an innocent man.

Alastair Dixon, 35, was subject to a sexual harm prevention order which was imposed in August 2023 for previous sex offences. He appeared at Ipswich Crown Court on Wednesday after it emerged that he had since breached that order by sending sexualised messages and images to an online decoy posing as a 14-year-old boy.

He was also found to have an unauthorised smartphone and had installed deletion software on computers at his address in Pilborough Way, Colchester, Essex. Another breach came in the form of Dixon creating an email address in an innocent man’s name, and using the account to share a link containing indecent images of children.

Dixon later admitted one charge each of attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity, attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, failing to comply with notification requirements, and perverting the course of justice. He also admitted seven breaches of a sexual harm prevention order. Judge Emma Peters said Dixon committed “sophisticated, serious offences” and jailed him for five years.

Detective Constable Jonathan Straight, an officer part of the team which monitors sex offenders, said Essex Police will continue to take action individuals who breach any orders. He said: “Thanks to our ongoing work there is a low rate of registered sex offenders re-offending in Essex.

"But we are not complacent, and where we see such flagrant breaches and fresh offences committed, we will take robust action. Sophisticated – a judge said Alastair Dixon's offending was organised (Image: Essex Police)

“This case proves breaches will be put before the courts and attract a lengthy prison sentence.

"By enforcing these court orders, we can minimise the risk posed and harm caused by registered sex offenders. Although Dixon was not engaging with a real child in this case, he believed he was – and there was therefore clearly a risk of a child coming into contact with him online and suffering real harm.”