A paedophile who sexually abused a young teenage boy at a house has avoided jail.
Robert Gyles Court, from Accrington, invited the youngster back to his home and then sexually assaulted him in his bedroom, a court heard.
A judge was told that Court, 24, was previously jailed for five years in 2014 for ‘similar’ sexually offences against other victims but had since been released.
Burnley Crown Court heard those offences took place after the incident involving the teenage boy.
At the latest hearing, Court, of Belfield Road, pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court to sexual activity with a child and was given a 12-month jail sentence, suspended for two years.
He was also given an indefinite sexual harm prevention order and ordered to sign the sex offenders register for life.
Alison Mather, prosecuting, told the court how the incident happened several years ago and wasn’t reported to police until the victim became an adult.
When interviewed by police, Court denied any sexual activity or ‘inappropriate’ behaviour with the victim and told officers ‘he’s never been to my house’.
In a victim impact statement read out at court by Miss Mather, the victim said that it ‘feels like my life has been a living nightmare’ and that he ‘felt ashamed and embarrassed about what happened’.
The victim said the incident ‘called into question his trust of other people’ and that it had caused a ‘great deal of distress’.
The court heard how the defendant was previously jailed in June 2014 for five years for separate sex offences and is currently on licence until 2019 with ‘substantial’ conditions.
Ricky Holland, defending, said the incident involving the teenage boy was ‘serious and abhorrent’ and had been ‘highly distressing’ to the victim’.
He told the court: “This case doesn’t need to result in another immediate period of imprisonment.
“It may interrupt the progress he has made thus far.
“As unattractive as this case is, the public interest will be best served in this case by continuing the rehabilitation of Mr Court.”
Judge Jonathan Gibson said Court had ‘expressed a willingness to comply’ with the probation service and that he still had ‘substantial work to do’.
He told Court that the work ‘should be completed on licence’.