By james art Richard Reeves, who is of previous good character, sent a Facebook friend request on his own behalf to the profile of a girl calling herself ‘Jass’ in June this year.
Durham Crown Court heard that ‘Jas’ was actually a fake profile posted by a member of the vigilante group, the Children’s Online Safety Team (COST).
When the defendant’s request was accepted, it soon became clear to him that “Jas” was 13, and he told her she was 50 before asking her if she was “okay” with that.
Durham Crown Court heard that despite the age difference, he continued the conversation later after he returned from work when he told her he wanted to talk about sex.
Reeves sent a photo of himself to the girl and asked her for a photo before he was sent an image of a teenage girl.
After asking to transfer their conversation to WhatsApp, he sent her an image of his genital area and asked her to reciprocate.
She asked him if it was okay to do it, and he told her it wouldn’t hurt anyone.
Miss Hurst said the girl then appeared to hesitate and said she didn’t know if she could trust him.
He kept asking for her intimate photos, but when she didn’t comply, he blocked her on both Facebook and WhatsApp.
Miss Hirst said that two days later COST members went to his home address, then in Crook, and contacted the police.
Officers arrived and arrested the accused, who, through his lawyer, issued a “significant statement” in which he said he did not know what had come over him, but admitted he knew what he had done.
He agreed, knowing that the person he thought he was corresponding with was only 13 years old and that he had sent her an intimate photo of himself.
Asked why he did it, he said it was “stupid” and sometimes he did things without thinking.
Reeves, 51, now said to be of Challinor Road, Hartlepool, admitted attempting to have sexual contact with a child.
As no girl actually existed, this is classed as an ‘attempt’ in law and attracts a small deduction from the sentence that would have been imposed compared to the full offence.
“There was no attempt to deflect, make excuses or play down his behaviour.
“He made confessions when questioned and his guilty plea was entered immediately.
“He has demonstrated an appropriate level of remorse and apologized for his actions.”
Mr McNicholas said the defendant had a level of diagnosed learning difficulty which “was evident in talking to him”.
But Mr McNicholas said: “I’m not saying it excuses or explains the crime but it does give a fuller understanding of the maturity of the defendant in this case.”
He said the offense had a “significant impact” on the defendant, who had lost both his accommodation and his retail job of 35 years, the last 20 of which had been in the same work team.
So he has already been subject to considerable punishment.
But he said the pre-sentence probation report stated that as a person of previous good character who had admitted the offence, he was considered to have a “realistic prospect” of rehabilitation in his case.
Judge Nathan Adams told Reeves: “You are someone who regularly talks to people online and that is perfectly fine as long as it is with an adult, but in this case you went way beyond that.
“Fortunately, there was no real 13-year-old in this case.
“It was bait, but it doesn’t lessen the harm you intended to do.”
“Offences like this can have a profound effect on real 13-year-olds and that’s why things like this are very serious.
“But there is no suggestion that you have engaged in such conduct before and there is no suggestion of communications of a similar nature before that.”
See more court stories from The Northern Echo by clicking here
Get more from The Northern Echo with a digital subscription. Get 5 months access for just £5. Click here.
The judge said he believed any risk of such a crime could be managed in the community.
He handed down a six-month prison sentence but suspended it for 18 months, during which the defendant must attend 40 rehabilitation days supervised by the Probation Service.
Reeves will also be subject to restrictions affecting his internet use for the next ten years under the terms of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, while he must register as a sex offender, also for ten years.