Sex Offender Sidesteps Court Order, Found With Undisclosed Electronic Devices

A registered sex offender, Steven Singleton, 63, was found to have evaded a strict court order by possessing a collection of electronic devices that he had not declared to the police. This was revealed in a recent court hearing.

Singleton, who was originally sentenced in 2014 for 11 offenses involving indecent images of children and extreme pornography, was subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). The SOPO required him to declare any internet-capable devices and allow police access for monitoring software installation.

However, during a routine police visit to his home in Levens on May 10, 2022, officers discovered a number of devices, including laptops, an iPhone, iPad, tablet, and fire sticks, that Singleton had failed to disclose.

While Singleton initially denied possessing these devices, the prosecution, represented by Brendan Burke, confirmed their presence. In court, Singleton admitted to breaching the SOPO.

Richard Bennett, Singleton's defense attorney, acknowledged that one of the devices was equipped with the monitoring software, but the others were not. He emphasized that a thorough police examination of all the devices revealed no illegal or prohibited images, stating, "The fact there are no images is a clear indication that following the original conviction, the sanctions meted out to him in 2014 have been successful, in part."

Singleton, who is currently unemployed, has since completed a sex offender treatment course and, in 2017, was assessed as posing a low risk of reoffending by the probation service.

Mr. Bennett explained that Singleton, who described himself as a hoarder, particularly with computer equipment, built his own computers. He claimed that Singleton mistakenly believed that surrendering his devices to the police would result in the destruction of his hobby and, in his words, his life.

All the devices had been in Singleton's possession for several years. Judge David Swinnerton, acknowledging the need for further consequences, suspended an eight-month jail term for two years and ordered Singleton to undergo additional rehabilitation through the probation service. He also ruled that Singleton would be deprived of the seized devices.

Judge Swinnerton concluded by reminding Singleton, "You must comply to the letter with the terms of the SOPO."