The respondent asked when her bedtime was; suggesting that sexual contact would only take place after the daughter was out of the way.
An undercover operation was launched and the evidence against the respondent came from chat logs and Skype conversations between him and an undercover police officer, aka “Lisa”.
In the course of general sexual chat, Lisa mentioned that she had a daughter and a dog, but there was no discussion of a sinister nature about the child.
Undercover operation The court was told that the police were investigating the fabswingers website following reports that certain communications on it contained messages relating to the sexual abuse of children.
The respondent’s computer was seized as part of the investigation but the content of his chats with others did not involve children, although he had had contact other persons originally identified as having expressed an interest in the abuse of children.
Sponsor a Library section, shelf or book and dedicate it to a woman of your choice, building a living tribute to remarkable women and raising funds towards the refurbishment costs still needed to complete the transformation of GWL’s permanent new home in Bridgeton.
Knowing that you can change someone’s life for the better is a powerful thing.During a further exchange of messages Lisa asked the respondent what he was “into”, and he referred to a number of sexual practices, including the involvement of the dog, but none of children.The daughter The first reference to the daughter was when the respondent and Lisa attempted to arrange a meeting, but Lisa said that her daughter would be in the house.Unfair trick Refusing the appeal, the judges observed that in 2010 JC 255 it was said that the question was whether or not an “unfair trick” was played upon the particular accused whereby he was “deceived, pressured, encouraged or induced into committing an offence which he would never otherwise have committed”; and that the resolution of the matter will depend on the facts of the case.Delivering the opinion of the court, the Lord Justice General said: “In this case, the significant facts were, first, that there was no evidence that the respondent had ever expressed any interest in sexual activity with children in the original chat logs examined by the police.Hear about these women and more this Thursday evening.