Shray Parekh

A 34-year-old man from Watford has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for breaching the conditions of his Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) and committing further sexual offences involving indecent images of children.

Shray Parekh, residing at Chesham Way, Watford, appeared at St Albans Crown Court on 25 March 2024, where he pleaded guilty to seven offences. These included three counts of making (downloading) indecent images of children, one count of possessing extreme pornography, two counts of breaching a SHPO, and one count of failing to notify an unregistered alias. This sentencing followed a police visit to his home in March 2023, during which officers discovered he had concealed a mobile phone that was not registered with them, as required under his SHPO.

Parekh had previously received a 10-month suspended prison sentence in December 2021 for sexual communication with a girl under 16 and possession of indecent images. Despite this leniency, he continued his offending behaviour. Prosecutor Nathalie Carter detailed how Parekh used an alias on Snapchat, an unregistered platform, to communicate with an individual he believed to be aged 13. On the hidden phone, authorities found nine Category A indecent images of children—the most severe classification—along with two Category B images, four Category C images, and one image of extreme pornography.

Defending Parekh, Gerard Pitt expressed that his client was 'deeply ashamed' and wished to apologise to the court. Pitt noted Parekh's history as a heavy recreational cannabis user but highlighted that he had sought help and completed the probation programme from his prior sentence.

Judge Barbara Mensah imposed the 18-month custodial sentence, revoking the previous suspended term. She also issued a new SHPO, which mandates polygraph assessments to monitor for reoffending. In her remarks, the judge stated: 'There are many aggravating features to this case, not least that you were before the court a few years ago for similar offending. On that occasion, you were given a suspended sentence, but all that has shown is that you have been devious and determined and your behaviour is entrenched. The court gave you an opportunity on the last occasions and you abused that by continuing to offend.' This case underscores the ongoing risks posed by individuals under sexual harm prevention measures and the judiciary's commitment to protecting children from exploitation.