John Redshaw will need to sign the SOR indefinitely and he has a sexual harm prevention order as follows
Sex Offender Notification:
All registered sex offenders are required to notify their personal details to the police.
This system is often referred to as the ‘sex offenders register’ and requires offenders to provide their local police station with a record of their name, address, date of birth, and national insurance number.
The length of time for which an offender is subject to the requirements will vary dependent upon the sentence they have been given for the relevant offence. Offenders who have been given a sentence of over 30 months’ imprisonment are required to notify for life..
This offender will remain on the Register indefinitely
An offender who has been placed on the Register for an indefinite period does have the right to contact the police to ask for his/her name to be removed – but the earliest they can do this is 15 years after their release from prison.
Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO):
A Sexual Harm Prevention Order restricts the offender from engaging in activities which are linked to his/her offending behaviour. This can include restrictions around work, visiting certain places and having contact with children.
The defendant is prohibited from:
1. Living in the same household as any child under the age of 16 or entering in any household where a child under 16 is present unless with the express approval of social services for the area in which he resides.
2. Having any unsupervised contact or communication of any kind with any child under the age of 16 other than:
a) Such as is in advertent and not reasonably avoidable in the course of daily life, or
b) with the consent of the child’s parent or guardian (who has knowledge of his convictions and with the express approval of social services for the area.
3. Using any computer or device capable of accessing the internet, unless
a) He has notified the police within 3 days of the acquisition of any such device,
b) It has the capacity to retain and display any such history of internet use, and he does not delete such history.
c) He makes the device immediately available on request for inspection by a police officer, or police staff employee, and he allows such person to install risk management monitoring software if they so choose.
This prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work, jobcentre plus, public library, educational establishment or other such place, provided that in relation to his place of work, within 3 days of him commencing use of such a computer, he notifies police of this use.
4. Interfering with or bypassing the running of any such computer monitoring software.
5. Using or activating any function of any software which prevents a computer or device from retaining and/or displaying the history of internet use, for example using “incognito” mode or private browsing.
6. Using any “cloud” or similar remote storage media capable of storing images (other than that which is intrinsic to the operation of the device) unless, within 3 days of the creation of an account for such storage, he notifies the police of that activity , and provides access to such storage on request for inspection by a police officer or police staff employee.
7. Possessing any device capable of storing digital images (moving or still) unless he provides access to such storage on request for inspection by a police officer or police staff employee.
8. Installing any encryption or wiping software on any device other than that which is intrinsic to the operation of the device
These restrictions are in place indefinitely
Restraining Order:
This defendant is prohibited from:
not to contact the victim and there family and not to enter Denmark Street or any other premises where he knows victims to be.
Unfortunately we cannot disclose where he will be residing – he is subject to an exclusion zone and can see it does not cover Dunston as police were unaware of the family member there.
🚫ORIGINAL STORY FROM AUGUST 2021🚫
⛔Gateshead voyeur secretly recorded indecent images of children and shared them on Skype⛔
John Redshaw, of Birtley, has been jailed for a catalogue of sex offences which left his victims feeling ‘physically sick’ and ‘humiliated’
A pervert who secretly recorded indecent images of children and distributed some of them online has been jailed.
Voyeur John Redshaw, 64, sneakily took footage of young girls without their knowledge for his own sick sexual gratification.
A court heard he had also made covert recordings of an adult and downloaded vile images and videos of youngsters from the internet.
Police attended his then marital home in Gateshead in October 2018 after receiving information he had indecent images of children.
On a memory stick and laptop hard drive, they found a mixture of material he had created himself and downloaded online.
He had shared some of the footage he covertly recorded and some he downloaded with at least two other perverts on Skype in return for other disgusting material, Newcastle Crown Court heard.
He claimed it had just been “fantasy chat”, said he had acted out of “silliness” and told police he was “more interested in schoolgirls rather than kids or babies”.
One of his victims said she felt “physically sick” and “humiliated about the number of people that might have seen the material and how many times they could have been shared”.
Another added that she “can’t stop thinking about how many people he had sent the footage to”.
Redshaw, of Cheshire Avenue, Birtley, Gateshead, pleaded guilty to two counts of taking indecent images of children, three of making indecent images, distributing some of the images and two counts of voyeurism.
As well as the 44 months prison sentence, he was made subject to a sexual harm prevention order and a restraining order.
Judge Tim Gittins said it was “truly awful” that his victims know he passed on some of the images he recorded of them while invading their privacy.
He told him: “You have left deep psychological scars that may never resolve.
“The truth is no sentence can repair the damage you have done to your victims.”
Christopher Knox, defending, said the distribution was not on a commercial scale.
He added: “He has no previous convictions, he is undoubtedly remorseful and he has demonstrated he has taken steps to address his offending behaviour.
“He was run out of the place he was living before, after he left the former matrimonial home.”
Mr Knox said Redshaw knows “how people are inclined to look upon people in his situation”, adding: “It’s a dreadful situation.”
He added that he has had a long wait for the case to be concluded, has already been punished and he wants to continue to help his disabled son.
