Online Grooming
Cases in UK
Written by Danika Koo
The "Nth Room" case is a criminal case involving blackmail, cybersex trafficking, and the spread of sexually exploitative videos via the Telegram app between 2018 and 2020 in Korea. A man nicknamed god god (later identified as Moon Hyung-wook) sold sexual exploitation videos on Telegram channels and groups. A copycat crime, known as the "Doctor's Room" was operated by a man using the screen name Doctor (later revealed to be Cho Ju-bin), who is accused of blackmailing dozens of women, forcing them to take sexually exploitative videos, some involving rape.
A group of twenty men were proved guilty in October 2018 of running a child grooming gang in Huddersfield, committing 120 offenses against 15 girls. These men were found to prey specifically on young girls under the age of 16, and those especially from vulnerable backgrounds. The “easy targets” particularly susceptible to being taken advantage of were seen to be teenagers who had an impaired mental state, who were bullied at school, and who were “socially isolated”.Their victims were subjected to both drinking and drugs in order to leverage the girls into an even more difficult and troublesome situation for these girls to extract themselves from. Some of the victims were seen to be driven up to remote areas of moorland late in the evening and left out there alone if they failed to meet the men’s demands. Violent threats such as bombing were also used to take control of these victims.
The families of the victim have stated that they had repeatedly informed and updated the police regarding the abuse that was occurring, however, at the time it was not taken seriously, even if it got to the point where one of the girls had been assaulted and taken into a hospital. This lack of understanding highlights the deficiency of safeguarding training and it took until 2011 for the allegations to be handled, when one of the victims wrote a letter to the judge which described the abuse she suffered from the Huddersfield grooming gang. After this, more and more victims came forward about the abuse they had experienced which eventually led to the creation of operation tendersea, which charged the gang in march 2017.
Nine men were arrested in February 2019 as they were accused of growing two teenage girls living in a children’s home, convicted of 22 individual offenses. These abuses started in 2008 when the two girls were at the age of 14.. The abuse began shortly after the girls moved into the children’s home, in which prosecutor karma kelly QC opposed the men’s opportunity to take advantage of the girls' young ages. These children’s homes would most likely have undergone safeguarding training to spot signs of abuse. However, they lacked resources which significantly hindered their ability to help those vulnerable children. She said that by using forceful, threatening means such as alcohol and drugs, it created a manipulative relationship to facilitate their sexual exploitation. Through these ways the men were also able to keep the girls complicit for a long period of time.
Unfortunately, these two girls were failed by the systems put in place to handle these sorts of situations. The former chief crown prosecutor in north-west England anzahl stated that everybody was responsible for the safeguarding of these girls and that every other victim had failed them as well. He emphasizes the fact that the police and community lack resources and training to successfully spot and handle cases of child grooming and abuse in time to stop this action. Nowadays, with more and more cases coming to light, this issue is growing more and more in terms of awareness. One of the victims of this abuse, Fiona Goddard, waived her legal right to an anonymous title in order to show other victims of child grooming and abuse that there is nothing to be ashamed of and to step up and report it before it gets worse.
ROCHALE
Girls as young as the age of 13 were sexually exploited at Heywood Rochdale between 2007 and 2010 where several of the men worked. A review conducted by the Rochdale safeguarding children board puts emphasis on the fact that the 17 agencies who were responsible for protecting vulnerable children shockingly proved their inability to protect these girls from exploitation. Of the victims who had experienced suffering, it included being forced to have sex with at least 20 men in one night, drink vodka whilst vomiting over the side of the bed, and being raped by “countless men” at the same time. The perpetrators would pass on the girls to their friends often to settle a debt and the victims, many of whom came from vulnerable backgrounds, were piled with drugs, alcohol and fast food and taken to “chill houses” across the north of England to be abused.
One of the victims, given the fictitious name, Amber in Three girls, was targeted by the gang when she was 14. Under a difficult upbringing, Amber was craving love and attention and was lured into a trap, becoming a subject to violent, sexual abuse. When this nightmare should have ended with the arrest and the trial of the perpetrators, it was instead handled completely differently. The police crown prosecution service (CPS) and social services treated her as if she were the perpetrator and not the victim. In 2009, when Amber was 16, the police officers went as far as to arrest Amber and they held her in custody for hours before being released on bail. This happened due to the fact that Amber had, under the pressure from the abusers, taken some of her friends to the takeaway where the ringleaders operated from. After this however, further action was taken against Amber, but it was another two, long years before the CPS agreed to treat her as a victim and witness rather than a suspect. During this period, Amber, who was now pregnant, was continued to be targeted by the grooming gangs.
However, things started to change for her when she met Oliver who had been headhunted to join the grooming gangs case as a detective and victim liaison officer in 2010. As she gained support from Oliver, this resulted in a database of abusers whom she identified by name, car registrations, telephone numbers and addresses, in which formed a large part of a police investigation that became known as operation span. Eventually, after a long journey of 18 months of multiple hearings, interviews and trials, the judge threw the case out and she won an apology and compensation from social services.
ONLINE GROOMING CASE - SARAH
A thirteen year old called Sarah stated that she was “shocked and confused” as to how that had happened to her. Like any ordinary teenager, she was on Snapchat, when a person approached her. However, she had believed that the person was a friend of a friend, and another teenager who was interested in her. Eventually, the two developed a deeper, trusting relationship, yet they still had never met in real life. Sarah said that the person she was texting seemed extremely complimentary at first calling her “gorgeous”, thus, when they started to ask her for explicit images of herself, she felt that she had no choice but to do as told. ‘I didn’t realize what was going on,” she said.
The pictures caused Sarah severe distress not only as she was now being blackmailed, but also as her snapchat account was accessed by a student at her school. The images of her had been distributed among classmates, causing sarah to take a further emotional toll. Despite this, however, Sarah had kept it a secret from her mother, Emma.
Her mom has stated that although the teachers at Sarah's school attempted to help her, not enough support was given due to the growing scale of the problem. Staff did not fully understand the level of trauma Sarah was facing, and the way some teachers dealt with the situation further exacerbated her anxiety. “the school tried their best but they did not know what to do” Emma said. She is now demanding changes and a better support system in schools, and is calling on the government to step in and ensure teachers receive better training for these types of cases. Her call had also been backed by Marie Collins Foundation, a charity that supports victims of technology-assisted child sexual abuse and exploitation. The chief executive, Vicki Green, stated that “I think the bottom line is that schools done have the time or resources to be able to address this properly, and that needs to be acknowledged”.
In addition to getting the government involved, Emma also felt it necessary to call on all parents in order to help ensure their children are aware of the impact of distributing such images could have on the victims of online grooming. She stated that “we have to educate them, teaching them to have empathy and compassion” Emma,having decided to share experiences of her and her daughter, hopes it will lead to drastic improvements and measures to prevent such occurrences from happening again.
PUNISHMENT FOR ONLINE GROOMING IN THE UK
In addition to getting the government involved, Emma also felt it necessary to call on all parents in order to help ensure their children are aware of the impact of distributing such images could have on the victims of online grooming. She stated that “we have to educate them, teaching them to have empathy and compassion” Emma,having decided to share experiences of her and her daughter, hopes it will lead to drastic improvements and measures to prevent such occurrences from happening again.
THE UK LAW
Section 15a of the Sexual Offences Act (2003) makes it illegal for an adult to intentionally communicate with a child under 16 for a sexual purpose. This offense is referred to as ‘online grooming’. The offense is still committed whether or not the child communicates with the adult. If someone were to be communicating with someone who states they are under 16, they are still committing an offense, even if they do not believe that they are really under 16. In the uk the indecency with children act 1960 is a main source of revenant piece of legislation:
Incitement to commit a sex offense : section 1:
“any person who commits an act of cross indecency with or towards a child under the age of fourteen, or who incites a child under that age to such an act with him or another, shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both”. It seems as if online grooming is already covered by the category of “incitement” to commit a sexual offense, however there are difficulties to have a successful prosecution. In order to prove the case, the prosecution would have to show that there was “an act of gross indecency” which the child had to be “incited” to participate in. If the law of constructed narrowly, then the prosecution would have to prove an intention to commit, and an incitement to be involved, with a specific act of indecency. Thus, the evidence has to be extremely specific such as that the perpetrator invited the young person to touch his genitals or allow sexual penetration. Nevertheless, without any specific evidence of incitement to commit particular unlawful acts, and the only evidence is that he had a general intent to persuade her to have sexual relations with him, the charge would not be made out.
Attempt to commit a sex offence:
Another possibility that the man could be charged for is the act of attempting to commit a sex offense against the child. Here, the man must specifically be seeking to commit the offense, and an attempt to commit a particular unlawful act.
According to UK law, there are four main offenses relating to the access of sexual images of children that you can be punished for. Firstly, possession, in which regards when one is to possess a sexual image of anyone under the age of 18 (physical or electronic). Secondly, Distribution. This regards sending a sexual image of a child to another person. It would include distribution through chat rooms, email, phone applications, text messaging, USB sticks and file sharing websites (peer-to-peer). Making also serves as the third main offense, referring to owning an electronic copy of a sexual image of a child. It would involve owning copies of images that are intentionally saved by a user on to a device and the automatic copy saved to a device when an image is clicked on. (images automatically downloaded from file sharing websites) Finally, If someone were to take their own sexual images of a child, it would be considered the 4th offense.
Other online sexual offenses relating to children includes the exposure of sexual material to a child: Intentionally showing a child sexual material, including adult pornography, sexual images of children and self-generated sexual images (e.g. showing your genitals to a child over webcam), through an electronic device or internet application. In addition Inciting a child to engage in sexual activity: this includes encouraging a child to perform a sexual act or to show sexual parts of their body, for example over a live webcam or asking a child to send a sexual image of themselves. This is a criminal offense if the child is under 18. Finally, meeting or arranging to meet a child for sexual purposes: This is mostly seen as a secondary part to grooming a child online; after the trust has been built, arrangements to meet may be made. Alternatively, this could involve talking to other adults online and arranging to meet a particular child through them, for sexual purposes (in this case, money may be exchanged).
ONLINE GROOMING STATISTICS IN THE UK
1) 82% of grooming cases they heard before were against girls (3,444) out of 4,183 instances) with 12-15 year old girls making up 39% (1,472) of all victims.
2) There was an 84% increase in offenses over 4 years and an annual increase of 2.5% from the first full year of covid.
3) 80,000 people who present a sexual threat to children online.
4) Statistics from the NCA (national crime agency) show that last year 2.88 million accounts were registered globally across the most harmful child sexual abuse dark websites, with at least 5% believed to be registered in the UK.
