The PSNI have been challenged after contending there is ‘no lawful purpose’ to release an image of a convicted sex-offender whose identity was cloaked in court-enforced anonymity until Press successfully argued against this.
In the course of challenging, the PSNI chose to release images of four men sentenced or controlling prostitution at Belfast Crown Court, immediately pointing to disparity and disjointed, selective decision-making
Due to the reporting ban, Press had limited opportunity to obtain a photograph of Steven John Dowson (49) from Riverview, Augher who attempted to arrange to meet a child for sex and possessed indecent child imagery.
Press won the challenge against lifetime anonymity on Dowson who was caught by undercover police while seeking to rape a 10-year-old girl.
Related: Press win court challenge against lifetime anonymity for sex offender
Reporting restrictions were imposed when first charged after he threatened to self-harm if identified publicly.
Challenged throughout, the judge at Dungannon Crown Court ruled in favour of Press at sentencing when Dowson was jailed.
He had engaged on social media with what he thought was the father of a female child but was a police decoy, disclosing his sexual interest in children and claiming to have sexually abused a child relative from she was aged 4 to 11, which he “missed”
The decoy purported to have a 10-year-old daughter who Dowson graphically described what he wanted to do, enquiring “Can I f*** her?”
He requested an image of the child which was refused and still stating his sexual intentions sought images of the decoy’s “youngest daughter”.
Dowson arranged to travel to England stating he would bring a teddy bear for the child.
PSNI arrested him on 6 December 2023 and sexualised internet searches, pornographic websites and child sexual images were found on two phones.
Judge Brian Sherrard told Dowson, “You focus on your own wellbeing and possess only limited victim empathy. You assert your actions were fantasy but your intention was fixed and grotesque in the extreme … Your aberrant interest in children is demonstrated by the abusive images, internet searches and websites visited. Your intention was sex with a child along with other degradation.”
Dowson was jailed for two years and will remain on the Sex-Offender Register for 10 years.
Defence counsel applied for the reporting ban to be made permanent, equating to lifetime anonymity which Press challenged pointing to disproportionality given such orders – of which only nine exist across the entire United Kingdom – are strictly reserved for very specific cases.
Rejecting this Judge Sherrard said: “There’s a strong imperative for criminal justice to operate in public. Nothing brought to my attention will dissuade me.”
With anonymity removed Press requested PSNI provide Dowson’s custody image but replied was, “Following discussions with the Senior Investigating Officer, it has been determined there is no lawful policing purpose to release the custody image.”
Press countered this pointing out public protection was critical, however there was no response, so the matter was escalated to the Chief Constable as it now appeared individual investigating officers can make decisions around the release images or not.
Rejecting the rationale for refusal, Press challenged the PSNI position of ‘no lawful purpose’ as say public interest and protection are paramount, therefore fully within PSNI remit and indeed obligation to uphold open justice and public safety.
In addition ‘no lawful purpose’ suggests Press are acting unlawfully which is entirely inaccurate..
PSNI were also reminded while there may be no PSNI policy to release images, there is likewise no policy to refuse.
But while the matter was with Chief Constable, the four images of those convicted of controlling prostitution in Belfast were released by the PSNI Press Office.
Following this Press further enquired why these were released but Dowson’s was refused, and what “lawful purpose” separates the two cases?
Also why is there continuing PSNI disparity with the approach at best appearing disjointed and at worst, selective.
How does this equate with Article 20 (Equality before the Law) to which PSNI are obliged to adhere?
Are PSNI releasing images to protect further potential adult victims of sexual criminality including controlling prostitution/exploitation, yet blocking that of a convicted child sex-offender?
If so, how is that justified given the inherent risks to children? If not, what possible reasoning can be proffered?
The PSNI has neither acknowledged nor responded at the time of publishing.
Most read today
LIR Construction
