**Mother Jailed after Plotting with Child Sex Offender to Abuse her Young Daughter**
A mother has been convicted and sentenced following her calculated arrangement for a known sex offender to visit her home and act on vile intentions to abuse her young daughter, a court has heard. The chilling plans came to light during a trial at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court, where graphic and disturbing details of the adults’ conversations and plotting were revealed.
The case, which centres on incidents involving John Davies, 45, of Staffordshire, has appalled the public and legal professionals. Davies, who was already a registered sex offender due to past convictions, communicated extensively with the mother to plan a week-long visit with the aim of sexually abusing the child. The pair discussed, in explicit terms, what would happen to the vulnerable youngster, as revealed by the prosecution during the hearing.
Court proceedings detailed the shocking level of collaboration between the two adults. Messages exchanged included discussions about what clothing the child would wear and explicit intentions regarding the acts to be carried out. Davies even sent the mother a photo of his sex toy collection, making detailed comments about how he intended to use particular items during the abuse. The extent of premeditation drew widespread condemnation.
It was also established that Davies planned to spend a week at the mother’s residence to facilitate the abuse. Prosecutor Josh Daley stressed to the court that the conversations left little doubt as to their intentions, calling the exchanges “disgustingly graphic”. This case came to light as part of an ongoing investigation into Davies, who was under strict legal sanctions due to his previous criminal history.
Davies’ criminal record already included significant offences. In 2016, he was imprisoned for attempting to meet a child for sexual purposes and for other related crimes. More recently, between 2022 and 2023, he was found to have breached his Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) on multiple occasions. By April 2024, his offender manager was notified of a second, undisclosed mobile phone at Davies’ address, sparking a new police investigation.
Upon seizure and analysis of the device, officers found 132 category A images—the most severe classification—alongside dozens of additional explicit images. The age of the children depicted in the indecent material ranged between six and nine, with images described by prosecutors as “painful” and “distressing”. Davies made no attempt to hide his preferences in exchanges with others, specifying ages that he found most attractive, which investigators found particularly damning.
Despite these grave discoveries, it was clarified by Paul Cliff, representing the defence, that the intended abuse against the child did not take place. Davies’ decision to confess to his supervisor about the phone ultimately led to the offences being detected, which contributed to his conviction.
Judge Graeme Smith, presiding, labelled Davies as “undoubtedly dangerous,” and handed down a lengthy custodial sentence. Davies will spend 14 and a half years in prison, with an additional five and a half years on extended licence, reflecting the severity and sustained threat he poses. Judge Smith also acknowledged the particular element of planned degradation and humiliation, indicating that the use of sex toys intended for the victim formed an aggravating factor in sentencing.
Davies pleaded guilty to several charges, including arranging the commission of a child sex offence (specifically the rape of a child under 13), attempted sexual communication with a child, distributing a Class A indecent image, and a number of breaches of his SHPO. A jury also found him guilty of arranging and facilitating the commission of a child sex offence.
As part of the sentence, Davies remains on the sex offenders’ register for life—a measure reflecting society’s grave concern at the risk he poses. The case underscores ongoing challenges around the monitoring of high-risk sex offenders and raises urgent questions about the protection of vulnerable children. It serves as a harrowing reminder for all agencies tasked with safeguarding to remain vigilant and proactive in response to threats of this nature.
This outcome will offer some comfort to the public that the justice system deals severely with those who conspire to harm children. However, the appalling nature of the offence and the involvement of the victim’s own parent remains a stark and disturbing aspect of this case, prompting renewed calls for vigilance and support for those who may be at risk behind closed doors.