≈ Comments Off on Stephen Drury/Stephen Pickering – Boston
Sex offender stayed at Spalding home with young children
A convicted sex offender was today given a further jail sentence after police discovered he had stayed at a house in Spalding where young children were living.
Stephen Drury, also known as Stephen Pickering, was on the sex offenders’ register for life and, as a consequence, was required to reveal his past to the householder.
But Drury failed to tell the Spalding woman and stayed at her home for a number of days before moving on.
Sarah Phelan, prosecuting, told Lincoln Crown Court that the woman had no knowledge of Drury’s previous conviction and let him stay with her.
She only learned four months later when police visited her home as part of inquiries to find Drury after he went missing having failed to confirm to officers where he was living.
Miss Phelan said “She was unaware he was a sex offender.”
The court was told that Drury was jailed for seven and a half years at Lincoln Crown Court in August 2004 for offences of rape, indecent assault and false imprisonment.
As a result of that sentence he was placed on the sex offenders register for life.
Drury (46) of Garfits Lane, Boston, admitted failing to comply with his sex offender registration requirements as a result of staying at the woman’s home in August 2019.
He admitted a second charge of breaching his sex offender registration by failing to update his current address to police in November 2019.
Drury also admitted two charges of driving while disqualified, two charges of driving without insurance, a further charge of possession of a small amount of cannabis and breach of a suspended jail sentence imposed for theft.
The driving charges arose from incidents in London Road, Boston, and the car park of the Lidl store in Holbeach Road, Spalding, when he was seen driving while banned.
He was jailed for a total of 12 months and banned from driving for two and a half years.
Judge Simon Hirst told him “These were deliberate breaches of your registration requirements. It is utterly unacceptable. Given your past conviction the risk is significant.”