Sex attacker breached court order banning him from being with lone women

editorial image
0
Have your say

A SEX attacker has been convicted of breaching a court order to protect the public.

Andrew Brook, who was given an extended jail term in 2003 for falsely imprisoning and indecently assaulting a woman, admitting having contact with a woman - a flout of the terms of his sexual offences prevention order.

The 58-year-old, of Station Road, Blackpool, is subject to a five year order that banned him from being in the presence of a lone female, Preston Crown Court was told.

Rachel Woods, prosecuting, said: “ It’s fair to say the defendant and the victim met prior to this incident, which happened on March 2, 2016.

“They had known each other about a month. She had apparently him asked him for a cigarette and they got chatting.

“She bumped into him one day and she agreed she would go back to his flat to cut his hair for him.

“ There was alcohol consumed and clearly there was some sexual contact between them because at some point he had left the room and returned without his underpants.

“ Whatever transpired between the two parties it’s fair to say she did leave the premises in a certain amount of distress.

“She went to a neighbour, the police were called, and he was arrested.”

The court heard in a police interview, Brook’s account was the contact between them had been “entirely consensual and a business transaction”, with him claiming he had given her money in anticipation of being “gratified”.

But at the time the order meant he was subject to a prohibition he should not have had a female in his premises.

The court heard Brook has 32 convictions for 49 offences.

He has previously been jailed for breaching the same order by engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child.

Recorder Mark Ainsworth said: “This is in may ways a very unusual case. But of course the events of March 2 take place against a background of your previous involvement with the courts for similar offences.

“This is the third time you’ve been before the court for the breach of a SOPO. You must understand when the court makes these orders the court demands they are carried out.2

But he accepted he was responding well to supervision and imposed a three month curfew and £100 victim surcharge.