‘You cynically used her for your own sexual gratification, treating her, in effect, as an object’
Vile pervert who abused girl for nearly two years, starting when she was six, jailed
APAEDOPHILE sexually abused a young girl as she watched YouTube videos and played with toys.
Andrew James paid his victim hundreds of pounds in cash while subjecting her to years of vile assaults.
His sickening crimes, which were committed in the Widnes area, left her “wondering why me?”.
Liverpool Crown Court heard the complainant was aged as young as six when she suffered a campaign of abuse lasting nearly two years.
She later told the police that James had regularly touched her to the chest and genitals while sitting on his knee as she watched videos on YouTube and as she sat on the floor playing with toys.
Michael Scholes, prosecuting, described how the 49-year-old - of Newtown in Gresford, North Wales - was also said to have called her “cringey” names and given her £500 on one occasion.
The complainant later confided in a friend and her auntie.
Under interview, James “denied all of the allegations”.
The divorced dad-of-one, who walked with the aid of a stick in court, also “did not accept that he had paid money in order to maintain her silence”.
In a statement which was read out to the court on her behalf, the victim said: “Every day is different for me. I can feel very angry and frustrated some days.
“I feel very confused and wonder why this has happened to me. I often wonder why, why me?
“What has happened to me has not only affected one area of my life. It has spilled into everything.
“Nothing is the same as it was before. I hope, now that the court case is over, I can try and rebuild my life, my confidence and happiness which was taken away from me.”
James has six previous convictions for nine offences, including receiving five years in 1997 for conspiracy to supply heroin.
Maria Masselis, defending, told the court: “The defendant is aware that he is going to receive a sentence of immediate imprisonment today.
“He has accepted his responsibility for the offence. The defendant invites me to express his remorse.
“He has no similar convictions. The defendant was addicted to heroin at the time he was involved in that conspiracy.
“He would say that sentence ended his involvement in drugs. He is capable of learning a lesson.
“The defendant has health complications. He suffered three prolapsed discs to his lower spine about 15 years ago.
“He was, at that time, working as a tanner and doing steelwork. He has never worked since, because he is simply incapable.
“His mobility and pain threshold are significantly affected by that accident. He has suffered, in the past, a pulmonary embolism which was almost fatal.
“He has a perforated colon and growths on it. He has already had surgery to remove these.
“There are ongoing, likely surgical, interventions which need to take place in the imminent future. A sentence of imprisonment will be more keenly felt.”
James admitted four counts of sexual assault on the day he was due to stand trial. He was jailed for six years and two months.
Sentencing, Judge Garrett Byrne said: “You cynically used her for your own sexual gratification, treating her, in effect, as an object. She describes feeling a great deal of anger, confusion and frustration.
“I accept that you have expressed genuine remorse. I accept that you have medical health difficulties which mean that custody will be that much more difficult for you.”
James was handed a restraining order banning him from contacting the complainant for life. He was also given an indefinite sexual harm prevention order and told to sign the sex offenders’ register.
Cheshire Police have refused to release James’ mugshot, despite official guidelines stating that his picture should be given to the media.
A 2005 protocol - created in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Attorney General’s Office and the media and guidance from the College of Policing state that a guilty defendant’s custody photo may be released “unless there is a court order or legitimate policing purpose preventing their identification”.
No such court order has been imposed in the case.
A force spokesman said: “On this occasion, we will not be releasing the mugshot you have requested upon the wishes of the victim and her family.
“The victim is a young girl who has already been through an extremely traumatic experience and states that the release of the image will bring her further distress and increase the chances of her being identified.”
‘I feel very confused and wonder why this has happened to me. I often wonder why, why me?’ Statement read in court on behalf of the victim