Advanced search

To think this story a little hard to believe

(27 Posts)
SkippyYourFriendEverTrue Fri 28-Sep-12 14:47:37

"Craig Evans must have thought things couldn’t get any worse after he accidentally sent a saucy text message intended for a lover to every contact in his phonebook.
How wrong he was!
The 24-year-old swimming coach ended up in prison for sex offences after the text also found its way to two young schoolgirls.
Evans had typed an intimate invitation to his girlfriend asking her if she would like to engage in sex with him ‘skin on skin’.
Excruciatingly, a slip of the fingers on his BlackBerry smartphone resulted in it going out via BlackBerry Messenger to all the numbers on his phone.
But as well as having to deal with the humiliation of his family reading the message, Evans’s mistake led to far more serious consequences.
Among the recipients of the text were two girls aged 13 and 14, which led to Evans, who teaches swimming in a leisure centre, being arrested and charged with causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
He was jailed for 18 months at Birmingham Crown Court in July."


Hmm so howcome he had those girls numbers anyway? .. Off to read the link ...

Proudnscary Fri 28-Sep-12 14:52:05

Well more to the point how come he was given a prison sentence and why didn't it come to light that he'd allegedly sent the message to his entire contact list before he was convicted?

It is a ridiculous waste of police and court time imo .. the police could have found out that he sent the same message to a number of people by having the phone for a bit. Waste of public money, and this guys life is now screwed basically because he had fat fingers and not a clue about using his new phone

SkippyYourFriendEverTrue Fri 28-Sep-12 14:52:58

It really doesn't ring true.

It appears that there might be reporting restrictions as it's a sex case, so I'm not sure if it's possible to get the court transcript, or that of the original case.

missymoomoomee Fri 28-Sep-12 14:53:19

It was proven thst he sent the message to everyone including family members and won his appeal as he wasn't targeting anyone in particular. I'm not sure which part you are finding hard to believe....

MrsKeithRichards Fri 28-Sep-12 14:53:34

Surely if it was the case it would be easily proven?

LittleWhiteWolf Fri 28-Sep-12 14:54:26

Seems perfectly plausible to me. His phone records would show if the text went out to EVERY contact, which it must have for them to release him.

TheGoldenKnid Fri 28-Sep-12 14:55:46

Apparently his sentence was reduced to a 9 months suspended jail sentence. Story here.

Dawndonna Fri 28-Sep-12 14:58:17

If you read the article, he didn't go to prison. He was given a suspended sentence. He was freed.

OldCatLady Fri 28-Sep-12 14:58:47

I have done the same thing. Except I'm not a teacher....but it we t to my mum/coworkers/boss etc, totally believable it happens

nancy75 Fri 28-Sep-12 15:01:49

It doesn't matter if he went to prison or not, he will still have lost his job, he has a conviction for a sexual offence which will mean he can't teach children anymore.
I don't really understand why he was prosecuted - surely it was obviously a mistake?

SkippyYourFriendEverTrue Fri 28-Sep-12 15:03:16

I don't see how someone can get found guilty and thrown into prison for 18 months on the basis of a SMS to someone there was otherwise no contact with.

Seems like there must be more to the story than is being revealed by the DM.

The sentence does not seem consistent with just sending a text by accident.

For comparison here are some other sex crimes receiving the same or lesser sentences:

SkippyYourFriendEverTrue Fri 28-Sep-12 15:05:53

He has been in prison for three months.

His conviction has not been overturned, merely reduced to a nine month suspended sentence.

SkippyYourFriendEverTrue Fri 28-Sep-12 15:06:45

"There were a number of mitigating factors in this case. We conclude that, taking into account the mitigating factors, the appropriate sentence was one of nine months".
"We have concluded that, given the unusual circumstances, this is a case in which, although the custody threshold was passed, it would be appropriate for the sentence to be suspended," concluded the judge, who was sitting with Mr Justice Coulson and Mrs Justice Thirlwall."

MrSunshine Fri 28-Sep-12 15:07:01

Its not true. You don't get 18 months for accidentally sending messages to the phones of underage girls. It would have been very easy to show if that happened.

It's simply not true.

SkippyYourFriendEverTrue Fri 28-Sep-12 15:13:05


QOD Fri 28-Sep-12 15:15:17

Doesn't make sense why it didn't clear him court. Was it not used in his original defence?

Dawndonna Fri 28-Sep-12 15:22:59

apologies, I misread it.
Having said that, brother is a barrister, so I suspect, more than meets the eye.

ChazsGoldAttitude Fri 28-Sep-12 15:31:42

I will interested to see the CofA judgment on this one. The offence requires intentional incitement so I am surprised clumsy phone usage meets that test. The CoA did say the custody threshold had been met so I'm a bit puzzled by this.

ErrorError Sat 29-Sep-12 00:05:07

I do believe that it could have been a genuine error sending a mass text. However, the real question is why did a 24 year old man have his 13 & 14 year old swimming students phone numbers in the first place? Serious boundary issue here, or am I not with the times? hmm

nancy75 Sat 29-Sep-12 00:08:21

Error, I work for a sports club, if the girls are in a swim club or attend lots of lessons it wouldn't be that unusual for him to have their numbers. I deal with a different sport and I know that our coaches contact the older kids via text as it's the quickest way to get hold of them, and the most likely to get a response.

ErrorError Sat 29-Sep-12 01:27:17

Ahh right. Clearly I'm not with the times then grin. Didn't have mobiles when I had swimming lessons. Convenient, yes, but probably considering the situation here, other instructors will now have to be more cautious. Excessive punishment for a mistake then.

Extrospektiv Sat 29-Sep-12 01:45:39

He needs his job back and the right to work with children or everything else is absolutely meaningless.

Banning is a much greater punishment than prison for most young professionals who get involved sexually with teenagers. They serve a short sentence in a relatively low category prison, then get banned for the rest of their lives. That may be fair enough for a real abuser, but in this case WTF is going on that his conviction has not been completely tossed out? (and any related info should not appear on a CRB, because no-one should have reason/rights to deny a man a job for an innocent mistake with no intention to abuse.)

cumfy Sat 29-Sep-12 02:03:22

Does seem very odd, and really need to see full appeal judgement when it comes out.

Possibly there is an issue that the intended recipient has not been identified.
Whether this is just a reporting restriction or he never identified her/him is entirely unclear from the DM article.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now