Pedophile sexually abused girl as she watched YouTube and played with toys

A pedophile sexually abused a young girl while she watched YouTube videos and played with toys

Andrew James paid his victim hundreds of pounds in cash as he subjected her to years of vile attacks. His heinous crimes committed in the Widnes area left them wondering: “Why me?”

Liverpool Crown Court heard on Wednesday that the complainant was just six years old when she was subjected to a campaign of abuse that lasted almost two years. She later told police that James regularly touched her on the breast and genitals while she sat on his knee, while she watched videos on YouTube and as she sat on the floor playing with toys.

READ MORE: From Castle to Court: 40 Years in Historic Liverpool Square

READ MORE: The ticket seller arrested at an LFC game spent two decades behind bars

Prosecutor Michael Scholes described how the 49-year-old, from Newtown in Gresford, North Wales, was said to have once called her “vile” names and once given her £500. The complainant later confided in a friend and her aunt.

In the interview, James “denied all allegations.” The divorced father-of-one who went to court with the aid of a cane “also did not accept that he paid money to maintain her silence”.

In a statement read out to the court on her behalf, the victim said: “Every day is different for me. Some days I can be very angry and frustrated.”

“I am very confused and wondering why this happened to me. I often ask myself, why, why me?”

“What happened to me didn’t just impact one area of ​​my life, it impacted everything.”

“Nothing is the same anymore. I hope that now that the trial is over, I can try to rebuild my life, my confidence and my happiness that were taken from me.”

James has been convicted six times for nine crimes, including five years in prison in 1997 for conspiracy to supply heroin. Defense lawyer Maria Masselis said in court: “The defendant is aware that he faces an immediate prison sentence today.”

“He accepted responsibility for the crime. The defendant calls on me to express his remorse.”

“He doesn’t have similar beliefs. The defendant was addicted to heroin at the time he participated in this conspiracy.

“He would say that sentence ended his drug addiction. He is capable of learning a lesson.”

“The defendant has health complications. About 15 years ago he suffered three herniated discs in his lower spine.

“He worked as a tanner at the time and worked as a steelworker. He has never worked since then because he was simply unable to do so.”

“His mobility and pain threshold are significantly impaired as a result of this accident. He had suffered a pulmonary embolism in the past which was almost fatal.”

“He has a perforated colon and growths on it. He has already undergone surgery to remove it.”

“There are ongoing, likely surgical procedures that will need to be performed in the near future. A prison sentence will be felt more keenly.”

James admitted four charges of sexual assault on the day of his trial. He was sentenced to six years and two months in prison.

In sentencing, Judge Garrett Byrne said: “You cynically used her for your own sexual gratification and treated her virtually like an object. She describes feeling great anger, confusion and frustration.”

“I accept that you have expressed genuine regret. I accept that you have health problems which means that custody will be all the more difficult for you.”

James was handed a restraining order banning him from contacting the complainant for life. He also made an indefinite sexual violence prevention order and ordered him to sign the sex offenders register.

Cheshire Police have refused to release James’ mugshot despite official guidelines saying his image should be released to the media. A 2005 minutes prepared in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Attorney-General’s Office and the media, as well as College of Policing guidelines, state that the custody photograph of a guilty party Accused may be published “unless there is a court order or legitimate police purpose preventing their identification.

In the present case, no such court order was issued.

A police spokesman told the ECHO: “On this occasion we will not be publishing the mugshot you requested at the request of the victim and his family. The victim is a young girl who has already endured an extremely traumatic experience and states that “releasing the image will cause her further distress and increase the chances of her being identified.”

Don’t miss the biggest, breaking stories by signing up for the Echo Daily newsletter here