)Update: See the bottom of this piece for more information about the Judge who handled this particular case)

I am a great believer in proportionate punishment when it comes to the criminal justice system. Proportionality should mean that minor offenders such as drunks who do no physical harm for others for example should not be treated with the same level of harshness as a drunk who punches someone in the face and causes injury to another person or who causes damage to property. The concept of proportionality, where the punishment fits the crime, should be a guiding principle for all those tasked with dispensing justice. Judges have to balance the need to proportionally punish offenders with the need to protect the public from the depredations of offenders, which is not always the easiest of jobs.

However, there has recently been a case from the English city of Worcester where the concept of proportionality and indeed the idea that the law abiding public should be protected from predators, has completely broken down. It has broken down to such an extent that a dangerous sex offender has avoided prison even though he has breached a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) on four separate occasions. According to a report in a newspaper that covers the Worcestershire and Herefordshire area, the Hereford Times, a convicted sex offender was spared gaol by a judge at Worcester Crown Court. The judge imposed what many, including myself, would see as an overly lenient sentence of a 12 month community order and a fine. This lenient sentence was imposed despite appearing on a charge of breaching the SOPO for the fourth time and despite having a record for sexual offences going back to 1984.

The sex offender, Keith Holloway, aged 65 of Barbourne on the northern outskirts of Worcester, pleaded guilty to breaching the SOPO by approaching a child in a lewd manner and owning a mobile phone with a camera facility, something he is banned from doing as a condition of the SOPO until 2027. I find that I cannot agree with the Judge’s viewpoint that the defendant’s actions represent a minor breach by Holloway. It may have been right, for reasons of proportionality, to call it a minor breach if the Judge was dealing with a first offender or an offender who was a minor at the time of the offence or if the original offence was not sexual and was at the very bottom of the scale of offending, but none of these caveats even remotely apply in this case. Holloway is a dangerous sex offender with a long and disgraceful record for sexual offences, who has regularly breached his SOPO conditions and has even been described by his offender manager as ‘high risk’. There is no way on Earth can I see any possible justification for such an appallingly lenient sentence in this case.

Holloway has a record for sending indecent articles through the post, approaching children in public places, sexually assaulting a child under 16 and making lewd sexual moves towards a three year old girl. This record is in addition to his long history of breaching SOPO conditions. This is not the sort of offender who should be given any sort of leniency, this is the sort of offender that deserves imprisonment. I believe that the Judge should have disregarded the defence counsel’s claims that imprisonment would ‘crush’ the defendant and would affect his health and instead prioritised the protection of the public.

The Hereford Times said:

Keith Holloway of Worcester thrust his exposed genitals against the girl, filmed under the skirts of young women and offered a girl of eight an ice pop, telling her she was ‘beautiful’ and inviting her to use his new shower.

But the 65-year-old was not sent to jail by Judge Nicholas Cole at Worcester Crown Court because the most recent breach of his sexual harm prevention order was deemed too ‘minor’ and because his defence barrister argued that prison would be ‘crushing’.

It is the fourth time Holloway has breached the same order since it was imposed in September 15, 2017. Three breaches involved his possession of devices (phone or laptop) with cameras and the most serious involved the befriending of a child (the eight-year-old girl).

Holloway, of Back Lane South, Barbourne, failed to tell his offender manager he had bought a new mobile phone fitted with a camera and was sentenced at Worcester Crown Court on Wednesday.

Although he is permitted to have a mobile phone he did not inform his offender manager he had bought a new one after breaking the old one by dropping it into a sink full of water.

If this offender was interested in reforming himself then he would have cooperated with his offender manager, but the long history of convictions and of SOPO breaches, one quite serious, plainly shows me that he is a recidivist paedophile who is unlikely to reform. The people of the city of Worcester deserve to be protected from this dangerous and warped individual but unfortunately the courts have consistently failed to do so.

The Hereford Times goes onto detail Holloway’s extensive list of previous convictions and breaches of SOPO orders. It is a nauseating record of physical sexual assaults, of pestering children, the sending of indecent articles (presumably child porn) and breaches of both previous suspended sentences and of SOPO orders. This is not the sort of offender who deserves leniency he really is not.

The Hereford Times added:

Michael Aspinall, prosecuting, described the defendant’s previous convictions.

The first dates back to 1984 for sending an obscene article in the post.

Holloway was jailed for 51 months on February 7, 2003 for indecent assault on a female under 16. Mr Aspinall said Holloway had approached a three-year-old girl in the corner of a supermarket and began ‘thrusting his pelvis’ into her.

“He was grabbed by the mother. His penis was exposed. Being confronted he began crying and saying he shouldn’t have done it,” said Mr Aspinall.

On that occasion Holloway was detained until police arrived to arrest him.

He received a sentence of nine months in prison suspended for two years for outraging public decency on October 15, 2007 after he used the camera on his mobile phone to photograph young women under their skirts.

“They were unaware of his activity but a passing member of the public reported it to police,” said Mr Aspinall.

Holloway was made subject to a sexual offences prevention order for 10 years but breached that on December 14, 2016 when police discovered during a routine visit that the defendant had a tablet which had a camera facility.

He was fined for this offence on August 24, 2017. As a result of a further breach Holloway was made subject to a sexual harm prevention order which was due to last until October 15, 2027.

When Holloway was visited again by police they found he had a mobile phone with video and camera facility in his hallway which led to a seven month prison sentence, suspended for 24 months on March 6, 2018.

Judge Cole has spectacularly failed in this instance to protect the people of Worcester from this man who seems to treat the law and the restrictions on his liberty imposed by the law, as if it was some sort of joke. Judge Cole, who imposed 12-month community order with up to 20 rehabilitation activity days along with a fine of £1,000 and a costs order of £350, in my view gave too much weight to Holloway’s guilty plea and to Holloway’s alleged health problems. It would have been much better had Judge Cole recognised that Holloway is unlikely to reform and equally unlikely to stick to any SOPO order imposed on him and activated the previous suspended sentence.

Some idea of how dangerous Holloway is comes from the comment section of the Hereford Times article, which also contains much anger from local residents about this unduly lenient sentence imposed on Holloway. One commentator who claimed to be the mother of one of Holloway’s victims, the girl whom the court was told was the subject of the ‘worst breach’ said:

Ljs1 21st January 12:53 pm

7 Just to clarify, the latest offence which was referred to as ‘the most serious’ concerned my own daughter. I referred my concerns to police after seeing another article in the Worcester News at the time and I am thankful that I did. Mr Holloway only pleaded guilty when he saw me turn up to court as a witness against him. He had pleaded not guilty initially. Due to his plea change I was not called to give give evidence but was thanked by the court for attending. He will reoffend. He always goes to the newsagent near the chip shop in the Tything either before school or after when he KNOWS that children will be there. Part of his last SOPO was to avoid using the shop between the hours just before and immediately after school. However, this may no longer be a condition of his SOPO. He is just awaiting that one chance and he will take it. Any questions, please feel free to ask.

After reading the details of this court case, Holloway’s previous dire record and the account of the lady who claims to be the mother of one of the victims, I have become convinced that Holloway is a sexual offence disaster waiting to happen. He is a sick individual who will, and I have no doubt about this, reoffend and maybe in an even more serious way than he has done in the past. If he can’t even stay away from areas that he is banned from where there are likely to be children present, then he is unlikely in the extreme to respond to any attempt by the judicial and offender management authorities to divert him away from his sick inclinations.

Gaol is the best place for this dangerous sex offender. It would have been both just and proportional to send this man away for a considerable time and I believe that Holloway’s persistent breaches of the SOPO should have imposed the maximum sentence on conviction for this breach of five years. I find it inexplicable that Judge Cole did not activate the suspended sentence previously imposed on Holloway or gaol him for the breach of the SOPO. This case, and Judge Cole’s actions make a complete mockery of the suspended sentence system, the SOPO system and has exposed the public in the city of Worcester, especially the children there to ongoing danger from Holloway. I hope that those who are affected by Holloway’s actions or who are disgusted by them make representations to the Attorney General about this spectacularly unduly lenient case. This man Holloway should not be on the outside for a moment longer than necessary, he should be gaoled and the people of Worcester protected from him.

Update/Addendum:

It appears that Judge Cole, who dished out this laughably lenient sentence on Holloway has form for imposing sentences that plainly do not fit the crime.  In the link below from the Ambush Predator site you will see how this judge imposed a non custodial sentence on a man who led a vicious attack on a man following an altercation in the street.  Sadly Judge Cole does not only release onto our streets dangerous paedophiles but violent thugs as well

https://thylacosmilus.blogspot.com/2018/08/this-is-why-brexit-is-so-popular.html