The PSNI has refused to release the custody images of two unconnected paedophiles, citing different reasons for each.
In addition, while the PSNI are currently developing a policy around the release of images, there has been no consultation with key-stakeholders including Press, which is a statutory duty for all public authorities.
There has recently been a softening stance and some images are released, but the PSNI implacably refused in the cases of Steven Dowson and Don Gailey, despite having no policy either way.
The refusals in these matters are currently being challenged, with one now with the Information Commissioner as the rationale proffered is entirely wrong in the context of offending.
Both men were granted anonymity orders on first appearing in court but these were successfully overturned following Press challenges.
Dowson (49) from Riverview, Augher attempted to arrange to meet a girl for sexual abuse and possessed indecent child imagery in 2022.
He used a social media platform to engage with what he thought was the father of a 10-year-old girl, but it was a police decoy.
Dowson asked to meet her, graphically describing what he wanted to do and enquiring “Can I f*** her?”
He arranged to travel to England advising he would bring a teddy bear for the child.
PSNI traced his address and arrested him in December 2023.
Two phones were seized containing sexualised internet searches which are too severe to report, a large number of pornographic websites and child sexual images.
During sentencing at Dungannon Crown Court Judge Brian Sherrard said, “Your intention was sex with a child along with other acts of degradation. While the child was fictitious …there was intention to groom by bringing her a teddy bear and multiple acts were envisaged.”
Dowson was jailed for two years and made subject to Sex Offender Registration.
Gailey (47) of Castle View, Newtownstewart admitted sexually communicating with children having presented himself as a teenage boy in January 2024.
A month after being traced he took a male relative to police, falsely portraying him as the offender.
Gailey followed the Tk Tok accounts of five girls and asked them to describe sexual experiences.
Offending was discovered when one eleven-year-old had her phone confiscated at school and on interrogating it, her mother found the messages.
Dungannon Crown Court heard he used “graphic descriptions” of what he wanted to do which are too severe to report.
Judge Sherrard told him, “You claim to have no sexual interest in children which is patently incorrect. You knew you were talking to children. You are still in denial over your deviant interest in children.”
Gailey was handed a three year Probation Order and placed on the Sex Offender Register.
Immediately after each case concluded PSNI were asked for the custody images.
Dowson’s was refused as his case fell just outside the point at which PSNI were starting to release images.
A Freedom of Information request was likewise refused with police contending potential impact on victims.
Except Dowson had no victims. He was engaging with a specially trained police decoy.
This is currently under investigation by the Information Commissioner.
Gailey’s image was refused as he was not jailed, and while PSNI pointed to the policy being developed, images will only be released in custodial outcomes.
This suggests disparity with PSNI setting their own regulations around image-release and failing to apply policy fairly.
Given the statutory requirements, PSNI were asked what consultation has taken place with key-stakeholders including Press.
A spokesperson replied: “Review of PSNI policy on the release of custody images is now in its final stages. Details of this review and our revised service policy will be communicated to media stakeholders in the coming weeks.”
This was inaccurate as the PSNI has previously confirmed it never had a policy around releasing images, therefore it is not possible to ‘review’ something that doesn’t exist.
Furthermore this did not address the specific question on consultation, so the response was sent back, but there has been nothing further at the time of publishing.
