Northern Ireland

Sex offender flouted restrictions and attended baby shower

A number of children were said to have been present at the event in Antrim on September 1

File photo dated 07/11/2022 of the crest of the Royal Courts of Justice where the High Court and the Court of Appeal sit in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
High Court in Belfast (Liam McBurney/PA)

A registered sex offender allegedly defied a ban on contact with children by attending a baby shower event, the High Court heard on Monday.

Gary Savage, 37, is also accused of having flouted restrictions on his activity in using online dating app Tinder.

Refusing his application to be released again on bail, Mr Justice McAlinden ruled: “This is a man who, in essence, cannot be trusted. "

Savage, with an address on the Antrim Road in Belfast, faces three charges of breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO).

One count relates to allegations he attended a baby shower at an address in Co Antrim on September 1.

Join the Irish News Whatsapp channel

A number of children were said to have been present at the event.

Savage is accused of two further violations of his SOPO by using a false name the previous month, and accessing Tinder in January this year.

Opposing his bid to be released from custody, prosecutors and police expressed concerns that he would be living close to facilities used by local schools.

A defence barrister claimed the case involved “malicious” allegations made by others after a former partner discovered Savage’s true identity.

“His now ex-partner went along with that through embarrassment at bringing him into the family home,” counsel submitted.

But Mr Justice McAlinden cited a number of previous “flagrant” breaches by a defendant subject to an order prohibiting unauthorised contact or association with children.

He held that Savage’s proposed address was too close to a playground and sports fields used by young boys and girls.

“The court has no hesitation in saying the prosecution has clearly established that the grant of bail in this case would be inappropriate,” the judge confirmed.

“No protective measures could be put in place which would adequately deal with the risk of re-offending in this case. Bail is refused.”