Leamington sex offender jailed for breach of prevention order after spending nights at home of woman with teenage daughter

A convicted sex offender began a relationship with a Leamington woman and spent nights at her home, where a 13-year-old girl also lived, without revealing his convictions to her.

Friday, 22nd November 2019, 11:53 am
Updated Friday, 22nd November 2019, 11:54 am

That put Marcus Lamb in breach of an order imposed when he had been jailed in 2015 for inciting a girl to take part in sexual activity.

And at Coventry Crown Court, Lamb (27) of Avenue Road, Leamington, was jailed for 27 months after pleading guilty to breaching the sexual harm prevention order.

Prosecutor Siobhan Collins said that in 2012 Lamb had been jailed for 18 months for having sex with a 15-year-old girl and inciting a 13-year-old to take part in sex acts.

Marcus Lamb

And after his release from that sentence, he incited another 15-year-old to send him pictures of herself performing sex acts and was also caught with indecent images of children.

As a result, he was jailed in 2015 for three-and-a-half years, ordered to register as a sex offender for life, and made subject to a sexual harm prevention order.

Under that order he was not allowed to have unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 16, and any supervising person had to be over 21 and to have been told of his convictions by his police offender manager.

After his release from prison Lamb began a relationship with a Leamington woman, and when the police went to her flat on an unrelated matter in May this year, they found him there.

And as they were explaining why they were there, the woman told them her 13-year-old granddaughter, who lived with her, was asleep in the flat.

As a result she was asked about her relationship with Lamb, and said they had met in March and that he had been her partner for the past seven weeks.

She said Lamb, who had told her he had been in the Army, which was a lie to explain his absence while he was in jail, came to her home every other day and had stayed over on three nights.

She knew nothing of Lamb’s history as a sex offender, and in the presence of the police Lamb told her he was on the sex offenders’ register because of ‘a false allegation of rape.’

The woman has since said she felt ‘shocked and sickened’ on learning of Lamb’s offending.

And Miss Collins added: “The Crown would say this was a persistent breach. He was at this woman’s home every other day, knowing there was a 13-year-old present. There is a real risk of him continuing to offend against young females.”

John Brotherton, defending, said: “This is his first breach of any order. He has to accept his previous behaviour, but six months have passed, and there has been no further breach.”

Mr Brotherton argued that Lamb ‘was not that great a risk’ to the girl, and had never been alone with her.

“His lie about being in the Army was a blatant lie, but it was to give an account for his whereabouts for a blank in his CV. There was no disrespect intended to those who did serve.

“The reason he didn’t tell her about his convictions was because he didn’t want to scupper the relationship at the outset,” added Mr Brotherton, suggesting Lamb could be given a suspended sentence.

But jailing Lamb, and imposing a new sexual harm prevention order for 20 years, Judge Andrew Lockhart QC told him: “In 2010 you were causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity and were placed on the [sex offenders] register.

“That should have been a clear sign to you, but between 2013 and 2014 you were causing another child under 16 to engage in sexual activity, and you were sent to custody for 42 months.

You were made subject to a sexual harm prevention order. When you formed a relationship with the grandmother of the child, you were minded to keep secret that which you well knew you should disclose.

“So in her house was a man who had two sets of previous convictions for grave offences against young children. Finding out about this, she was utterly horrified, as you can imagine.

“I am absolutely clear in my mind this was a persistent breach.

"This was a breach that risked very serious harm.

"You were in a house where there was a child of the same age as those you had assaulted.

"Only a custodial sentence can be justified.”