An offender from Nottingham spent eight months living at a property containing a child without the mother knowing he was legally forbidden from being there, Nottingham Crown Court heard. Michael Hall had been barred from such proximity after being convicted at age 20 of 11 counts of sexual activity involving a child. The order prohibited him from spending even one night in a residence where a minor was present without parental permission, and required guardians to be told about his criminal record. Despite this, throughout the entire period the now 37-year-old said nothing and treated the restriction as merely something that was inhibiting his private life rather than a serious legal requirement. His dismissive approach has now resulted in a prison sentence. Passing a two-year custodial term, Judge Nirmal Shant KC said that in all that had been read in the pre-sentence report and all of the information available showed that Hall appeared to have no problem with breaching this order. The judge noted that Hall thought it was inhibiting his private life and, given the same circumstances again, it seemed to be a risk he was prepared to take. The judge observed that the whole tenor of Hall’s letter was that he saw it as people interfering, and he thought there was nothing wrong with breaching the order and that anyone else was inhibiting his life. Therefore, the judge stated, this had to be immediate custody and he needed to understand he did not get a choice. Lucia Harrington, prosecuting, explained that the defendant received a sexual offences protection order, later renamed a sexual harm prevention order, in 2009 at age 20 following 11 counts of sexual activity with a child. She said it was originally set for 10 years then prolonged indefinitely after a breach in 2012. The terms prohibited him from living at any property where a child resided without obtaining permission from the child’s parent or guardian. However, between September 2024 and May 2025, he was doing precisely that at an address on the Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire border without the child’s mother being aware of the restriction. Miss Harrington said police attended the address in May 2025, and the officer made enquiries asking the mother if she was aware he was not permitted to live there with a child present. She stated she was unaware, and so he was arrested on suspicion of breaching the order. He was interviewed and described the order as red tape, stating he did not see himself as a threat. He further stated it was a stupid mistake and that locking him up was up to the authorities. Hall, from Whitwell Close in Broxtowe, admitted breaching the sexual harm prevention order and has 12 prior convictions for 26 offences spanning 2002 to 2015, Miss Harrington added. Amelia Trem, for the defence, said her client had committed no offences during the 10 years preceding this breach, proving he is capable of not offending. She said he wished to move past all of this but acknowledged that his failure to inform the child’s mother was a poor decision. The indefinite sexual harm prevention order will remain active until a court makes a separate ruling to lift it.