POLICE appeared to have reversed their previous view that a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) was not required for Derek Gault, mounting an application while during an appeal against sentence.

However, this was unsuccessful, with the judge deeming this unnecessary and noting no mention was made of this to Enniskillen Magistrates Court when Gault was originally sentenced earlier this month.

Similarly, a SOPO was not sought after Gault was convicted of exposing himself and sexually assaulting a carer last year, for which he received a suspended sentenced.

Given offending resumed within months, culminating in the six-month prison term, the PSNI were asked why a SOPO was not requested on the most recent occasion?

A number of confusing responses were received, including one which appeared to indicate Gault was only sentenced for Covid regulations breaches.

Eventually, it was contended a SOPO was not appropriate, given Gault’s health.

Somewhere between that and the appeal hearing, the PSNI apparently reconsidered and advised they would now seek a SOPO.

A defence barrister said he was only made aware of the SOPO application a few days beforehand, and said it was: “Not addressed in the magistrates court in any way, shape or form.”

He felt the offences were low-level, and cautioned the court on making orders to restrict individuals from doing something unless they either “threaten or are likely to do”.

An officer from the PSNI Offender Management Unit said there had been involvement with Gault on a regular basis since his conviction and placement on the sex offender register in 2019.

He told the court that while Covid restrictions have caused difficulties engaging with health sectors around Gault’s recognised vulnerabilities: “There has been a litany of instances where he has exposed himself, whether to urinate or defecate, but also the places he has chosen to do so are often in full view of the public, including children and others who are deemed vulnerable.”

Stressing the importance of a SOPO, the officer pointed to: “The sheer scale of offending. What is before the court is only the tip of the iceberg. There were many other instances where a formal complaint wasn’t made.”

While Gault is currently classed as a Category 1 offender, the lowest on the scale, the officer stated a meeting is scheduled to discuss increasing this to Category 2, equating to medium level: “Due to the level of risk we feel he poses at the moment.”

Nonetheless, the defence insisted: “The application for a SOPO on the basis of risk of serious sexual harm is not well grounded … It is premature

“There are clearly serious matters in the pipeline which will be adjudicated on in due course.

“It would be much more appropriate for an application to be brought at the conclusion of those, if convicted, which are of a sexual nature and not for indecency over incontinence issues.”

Judge Brian Sherrard ruled while it was feasible for the court to impose a SOPO: “It can only be put in place if it is necessary for the purpose of protecting either an individual or society from serious sexual harm.”

Describing such orders as “oppressive, significant and made for years”, the judge felt this to be unnecessary and disproportionate.