Judge says delay in Ballygawley man’s court case ‘not acceptable’

A JUDGE has criticised the lack of progress in the case of a Ballygawley man accused of attempting to communicate sexually with a child, describing the delay as ‘not acceptable’.

Paul Stansfield (67), of Main Street, is charged with intentionally attempting to communicate with a 13-year-old girl on August 14, 2023, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, and of encouraging her to make a sexual communication.

The case stems from an online sting involving a child protection group based in England, who confronted Stansfield at his home. It is alleged that he requested indecent images from the girl.

Stansfield has remained in custody since his arrest, as he has been unable to secure an alternative address to meet bail conditions.

A defence barrister told Dungannon Magistrates Court that his client has now served the equivalent of a custodial sentence that could be expected for such offences.

“The defendant has very likely served in excess of any sentence the court might impose,” he said. “We are at something of an impasse. It seems efforts to advance this are at a standstill. We were originally told this was a cut-and-dry case, with all evidence gathered by the individuals in question.”

Delays in the case have partly been blamed on Stansfield’s refusal to provide access codes for his phones. Police have confirmed that the devices will eventually be accessed without the codes.

District Judge Francis Rafferty questioned why the grading of images was relevant, given the charge is attempted sexual communication.

“If the charge is attempted sexual communication with a child, why would images need to be graded? That generally refers to indecent images of children,” he said. “My concern is grading is being proffered as an indication of something that, in my view, isn’t required in this case. The court does not see how grading should in any way delay the conclusion of this case. It is becoming excessive.”

The prosecution responded that it would appear ‘there was an act to most of these matters’, but the judge said that would only form background to the current charges.

He adjourned the case until May 21, insisting there must be ‘significant progress’ before the next hearing.