This is the Echo's version. Quite a lot of additional detail here. And certainly not just a simple rehash of the CPS press release (nothing on the Merseyside Police website, but maybe that's because the case concluded on Friday afternoon).
And certainly no mention of a 'car' here, and the word 'van' is used several times. And the recorder uses the word 'van' in her sentencing remarks.
Which is also consistent with the fact that he worked as a newspaper deliver driver.
Fake Uber driver kidnapped woman outside Anfield Stadiumhttps://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... n-34193025Damian Watson locked his terrified victim inside his van and demanded that she expose herselfA dad posed as an Uber driver in order to kidnap a woman from outside Anfield Stadium. Damian Watson was said to have prowled the streets searching for vulnerable victims before parking up outside Liverpool FC's home ground.
There, one event attendee who had booked a ride into Liverpool city centre entered his van, wrongly believing it to be her taxi. The newspaper delivery driver then locked the doors of his vehicle and demanded that she expose her breasts to him while keeping her captive for nearly half an hour.
Liverpool Crown Court heard this afternoon, Friday, that the complainant had attended an event at Anfield before booking an Uber to take her to Concert Square, where she had planned to meet up with friends, shortly after 11.30pm. CCTV footage meanwhile showed Watson driving around the city centre in his white van and then onwards to the stadium while "looking for a vulnerable female to target and to commit a sexual offence".
Neil Bisarya, prosecuting, described how the 36-year-old, of no fixed address but formerly of Liscard, Wirral, thereafter parked near to the iconic Shankly Gates, adding: "The crown's case is that he was looking for a vulnerable lone female to target, pretending to be a taxi. That was why he was waiting there."
This led to the woman getting into Watson's van, believing it to be her Uber. Having asked what her intended destination was, he instead drove her to a "secluded alleyway" in the Bootle area.
Mr Bisarya said of this: "She looked out of the window and did not recognise where she was. In addition, she got a notification saying that her Uber had been cancelled. This alarmed her, as she believed she was in the Uber. She asked the defendant where she was. He replied, 'you're in Bootle now love'."
The victim then requested again to be taken to the city centre, at which stage Watson restarted his engine. But, instead of driving away, he then turned to her in the back seat and demanded she expose herself.
At this, the "panicked" woman attempted to open her door but found it to be locked. Despite pleading to be let out of the van, Watson repeated his request "in an aggressive manner" four times before unbuckling his seatbelt and telling her to expose herself and then he would let her out.
With his "extremely scared" victim having "complied under duress", having "feared he was going to rape her", he then began to drive away before again asking her to expose herself to him, telling her that he "wouldn't touch her" before stopping his van once more. Mr Bisarya told the court: "Again, under fear and duress, she exposed her breasts to the defendant for a second time.
"The defendant was not satisfied with the view he had and asked her to move so that he could see her breasts better. It was only when she was in distress and hyperventilating that the defendant stopped any further demands."
Watson ultimately drove her into the city centre before allowing her to exit his vehicle at the junction of Berry Street and Seel Street. It was subsequently found that he had filmed the incident by attaching his mobile phone to the centre console.
Under interview, Watson accepted that he had given a lift to the woman but "denied making sexual requests of her". Having kept her in his van for a "protracted period of time" of around 20 to 25 minutes, Mr Bisarya added: "This was not opportunistic. It was planned, searching for a vulnerable female."
Watson has no previous convictions. David Woods, defending, said on his behalf: "None of the defendant's family are present in court. They have been on previous occasions. They are supporting him in what is a very difficult set of circumstances for them.
"He was employed as a delivery driver, delivering newspapers, and was therefore likely to be out late at night and early in the morning. That would explain his presence in Liverpool, but not necessarily at Anfield Stadium. It may be that his presence in Liverpool city centre was merely his movement towards Anfield Stadium. He would have, after this offending, gone to work and delivered newspapers.
"This is an unusual case, because the defendant is a man of good character and a man with pro-social attitudes. He is a man who has cared for his family for many years. He has worked continuously since he left school. He has been a good and proper member of society and has not caused any concern.
"It would seem that this offending is out of character, in light of his previous behaviour. It is clearly something that nobody expected. He is extremely remorseful and sorry that he has acted in this way, having had a short time to reflect.
"There is a point where the victim becomes distressed. She says she began to feign a panic attack for the purposes of trying to prevent any further escalation in his behaviour. When she started to be upset, the defendant changed his attitude. He made no further demands of her, then, rather than simply abandoning her, he drove her back to the place she wanted to go to in the city centre.
"In my respectful submission, his remorseful behaviour began almost at that point, when he realised the enormity of what he had done. He had gone from a man recognised as a decent member of society to a man who has taken a young girl away in his van and subjected her to sexual demands.
"He will have a long time to regret this. His family, with remarkable care and love, are prepared to work through this with him in order to assist, ultimately, his rehabilitation.
"He effectively committed this offence by fraud. This is not a classic kidnapping case, where someone is taken with force or violence. This is different. There was no violence in this case.
"The defendant made it clear that he did not intend to touch the victim. Although she may not have believed that, he did say that and, indeed, his actions, once she had exposed herself, suggest that he was not going to take the matter any further. Her obvious distress caused an effect on the defendant which is perhaps more in keeping with his true self than the man who was committing the offending on this occasion.
"He would like to apologise. He realises the enormity of his behaviour. It is clear from his attitude that he, once he has received his punishment for this matter, is determined to address any issues that have arisen and not be before the court again. He never even dreamt that he might be in custody one day.
"He was grieving for a friend who died unexpectedly. It appears that has perhaps affected his behaviour over the last two years or so. It is, of course, no excuse, but it is perhaps some explanation."
Watson admitted kidnap and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Appearing via video link to HMP Liverpool wearing a black Montirex t-shirt, he held his head in his hands throughout the hearing before being jailed for five-and-a-half years.
Sentencing, Recorder Anna Pope KC said: "I am satisfied that, on that night, you were out on your own, looking to find a lone female against whom to commit a sexual offence. You prepared for your offending by setting up your mobile phone, so that the camera was facing the back seat. This demonstrates to me a significant degree of pre-planning in your offending.
"You parked up and waited for your victim. She got into your van, believing you to be the Uber driver who had come to collect her. You went along with the fact you were Uber driver and started to drive her away.
"You then stopped your van on a street for a period of up to 15 minutes. She did not recognise where she was. She got a notification on her phone to tell her that her Uber had been cancelled. It was at that point that she felt extreme panic. She had, until that point, believed she was in the Uber.
"You had parked up in a secluded alleyway. She tried to open the door but could not get out because it was locked. She was begging to be let out. You refused, and she exposed her breasts to you through fear.
"You then drove off. You continued to ask her to expose her breasts. She asked to be let out and, again, through fear, exposed her breasts for a second time. She was hyperventilating. You stopped making any further demands and drove away.
"It is clear to me that your victim was terrified. Your victim showed incredible courage and fortitude. She can only be commended for the way in which she dealt with a frightening situation. She thought, that night, that you were going to rape her.
"The doors were locked. She was trapped in a vehicle with you. I take the view that this was deliberate targeting of a particularly vulnerable victim. She was terrified.
"At times, she was struggling to breathe. You demonstrated a significant degree of planning. You showed predatory behaviour that night and set up a camera for your own sexual pleasure.
"There is, quite clearly, another side to your character. I recognise that your imprisonment will have a real impact on your family and three children, particularly your six-year-old son, who has been diagnosed with autism.
"Women on a night out in Liverpool have every right to feel safe. Anyone who seeks out lone women then goes on to commit serious offences can expect significant punishment. You knew what you were going do before she got into the van."
Watson was also handed an indefinite sexual harm prevention order. He will be required to sign the sex offenders' register for life.
Login
Register
FAQ
