Stanley man was, in reality, chatting to an undercover police officer

Unknown to Stuart Brown, however, he was, in reality, communicating with an undercover police officer, using the profile name of ‘Maisie’.

Durham Crown Court was told that although Brown had not been seeking an underage person to communicate with on the Kick platform, when ‘Maisie’ responded and informed him of her supposed age, it did not put him off chatting.

(Image: The Northern Echo/Internet)

Cainan Lonsdale, prosecuting, said Brown, using the name of ‘Lee Thompson’, told ‘Maisie’ he was 40 and she made it clear to him she was 13, claiming to be from Southampton.

Mr Lonsdale said on being told her age, the defendant’s reaction was: “Oh s**t”.

When she asked what the problem was, he replied: “Your age”.

But it did not deter him from going on to ask her if she liked to speak to men, telling her she was, “naughty”.

He asked her if the men she spoke to were “naughty” with her and asked her to confirm that her parents were unaware of her using the site.

Mr Lonsdale said after a lull for a day of two, after the initial chat on May 22, last year, he resumed the conversation by asking for a photo of Maisie and inquiring “how naughty” she was, telling her she sounded, “naughty”.

He also told her he was “dirty” and sent her an emoji of a tongue, plus an image of him showering, masked by steam.

Brown continued to ask Maisie for a photo, querying if her profile picture was really her, and continued to speak to her through to May 30, 2023.

Mr Lonsdale said when he became aware the police were seeking to speak to him about the nature of his online communication, Brown handed himself in at Chester-le-Street Police Station, on July 13 last year.

He confirmed he had a link to a Kick account and claimed he had used the app once.

But when the now 42-year-old defendant, of Hollyhill Gardens West, in Stanley, appeared before magistrates on June 25, this year, he admitted a single count of attempted sexual communication with a child.

It was classed as “an attempt”, as the person he believed he was taking to, was not a child.

The case was committed for sentence to the crown court.

(Image: The Northern Echo)

Jon Harley, for Brown, told the sentencing hearing the defendant has no convictions or relevant cautions.

Relating to the offence, Mr Harley told the court: “There’s little I can say. It speaks for itself.”

Mr Harley said: “The use of a false name in setting up his Kick profile was not designed in any way to enable him to speak to underage girls.

“The intention was to speak to adult females.”

Mr Harley said the defendant was experiencing difficulties in his long-term relationship at the time.

“Feeling very low, he wanted to have intimate and sexualised interaction with a female partner.

“It was only when he came across that profile that he began to chat to her.

“His reaction to finding out her age was: ’Oh s**t’, and he made comment about her age, but he has to concede he didn’t disengage and did engage in something that was unlawful.

“That’s something he regrets and will regret for the rest of his life.”

Mr Harley accepted that in his pre-sentence report, prepared by the Probation Service, there appeared to be, “a veneer or lack of understanding” as to his reasons for maintaining the conversation, once told the girl's supposed age.

“He claims he didn’t have a sexual interest with anyone underage and claims he couldn’t recall the conversation.

“Whether that’s him being in denial, but he accepts it was entirely wrong and came at a time he was at a low ebb.”

Mr Harley said the defendant needs to be helped to understand why he did what he did.

He said the defendant could work with the Probation Services to enable him to get back on with his life and ensure, “he doesn’t fall into this trap again”.

Mr Harley said providing the defendant avoids a prison sentence he could resume his role in a managerial post with a delivery company.

He added that with the assistance of the Probation Service it could, “rightly be treated as an anomaly”.

Recorder Edward Legard said the defendant was, “of hitherto good character”.

He told him that despite being informed of the girl’s supposed age he continued to exchange messages, “making repeated references to her being naughty and asking if some of the men with whom she was in conversation were naughty as well”.

Recorder Legard said when arrested the defendant made “no comment” and when his phone was seized it was noticed the Kick application had been deleted before it could be examined.

He said another aggravating feature was the use of a false profile by the defendant.

“The author of your pre-sentence report recommends a community order, with unpaid work and a rehabilitation activity requirement.

“He recognises you are at risk of an immediate prison sentence today.

“You have never previously experienced custody and points to your positive good character and lack of previous convictions.”

The Recorder said character references made by supportive family members and work colleagues “speak highly of you” and added he was faced with a “dilemma” as to whether, or not, he should impose an immediate prison sentence.

But he added that “accepting your remorse”, overall he believed society would be better served and protected if the defendant carried out unpaid work in the community and worked with the Probation Service to address his issues.

He imposed a ten-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, during which the defendant must carry out 200 hours’ unpaid work and take part in 30 rehabilitation activity sessions, overseen by the Probation Service.

See more court stories from The Northern Echo, by clicking here

Durham man spoke to undercover cop he thought was girl on Kik

Man groomed girl, 13, online arranging to meet her at a Durham hotel

Durham man was unwittingly in sexual online chats to undercover decoys

Don't miss out on the latest news and stories. Subscribe to The Northern Echo now for £4 for four months, by clicking here

The Recorder also made Brown subject of a Sexual Harm Protection Order and notification as a sex offender, both to run for ten years.

He was warned any breaches could land him with a prison sentence of up to five years.

A forfeiture order was made for the mobile phone used by the defendant.