A CONVICTED sex offender who was given a strict court order to control his access to the internet use breached it the very next day.

Eden Valley man Bruce Humphreys, 36, who was first given a sexual harm prevention order after he committed offences on the Falklands Islands, illegally used an internet enabled tablet the day after being sentenced for earlier breaches.

Police had not been told he had the tablet, which was not fitted with the necessary monitoring software, Carlisle Crown Court heard. 

When officers discovered this, the defendant explained that he had used the tablet to search for “legitimate” pornography. He also had a “Go Pro” camera capable of storing digital media.

His possession of those two devices constituted a breach of Humphreys’ sexual harm prevention order – offences he admitted before magistrates in Barrow.

The defendant’s offending history stretched back to 2013, the court heard.

His crimes – committed on the Falkland Islands - related to meeting a child after sexual grooming and a sexual assault. He moved to Cumbria in May 2022.

Andrew Evans, defending, said the defendant, of Front Street, Penrith, was recently given a revised sexual harm prevention order.

It consisted of 47 clauses of instruction covering nine pages, regulations he had been learning slowly with the assistance of his offender manager.

But Judge Nicholas Barker said Humphreys knew the central terms of the order included him having no contact with children and not having unvetted access to the internet.

Mr Evans accepted that but pointed out that Humphreys had not used the tablet device or the camera for any illegal purpose.

The court heard that the defendant was currently under the terms of a suspended 16-month jail term.

Judge Barker told Humphreys: “I imposed a suspended sentence on you on January 19 and the next day you used an internet-enabled tablet to access the internet.

"You had not notified the police about that. You could not have complained if I had locked you up today and it would have been for the whole 16 months sentence.”

But for this modest breach of the order such a sentence would be disproportionate. The judge imposed a two year conditional discharge, warning the defendant that any further breaches of the order will attract a sentence in excess of the 16 months term that he is already at risk of receiving.

Any future claims that a breach was inadvertent, or the result of ignorance, would fall on stony ground, said the judge.