A CAERPHILLY pensioner has avoided jail after arranging to meet with someone who he believed to be a 12-year-old girl following a month-long string of sexual messages.

Between April and May this year, William Anderson, of Pembroke Court in Hendredenny, sent sexually explicit messages and asked for photographs of who he believed to be a 12-year-old girl - but was actually an undercover officer.

Anderson began talking to ‘Layla’ on social networking site Lycos on April 13, using the username ‘Bill Cricket’.

READ MORE:

On the site, he asked her where she lived and if he could have her number, prosecutor Richard Ace told Cardiff Crown Court.

The defendant then switched to messaging ‘Layla’ on Whatsapp, where she said she had been banned from other social media sites because she was 12.

After a series of sexual messages, in which Anderson asked for photographs of the girl and warned her not to tell anyone about their exchanges, they agreed to meet at the bandstand in Caerphilly town centre at 1pm on May 5. But when he arrived Anderson was met by police officers, who arrested him.

Owen Williams said in mitigation that Anderson was a man of “hitherto clean character.”

“He has lived an industrious, completely law-abiding life,” he said.

“His life changed significantly seven years ago when his wife passed away.”

He added that Anderson lived a “lonely” and “isolated” life.

“This is no excuse for his actions but offers perhaps some explanation for them,” said Mr Williams.

For the charge of attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming, Judge Christopher Vosper QC handed Anderson a nine month sentence, suspended for two years.

And for attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, he was handed a six week sentence, also suspended for two years, to run concurrently.

He must complete up to 25 days of rehabilitation activity requirement.

Anderson must register on the sex offenders' register for 10 years, and was made the subject of a sexual harm prevention order for the same length of time.

He was also ordered to pay a £156 surcharge.

Judge Vosper added that he believed the requirements had been met for a more serious charge, which the prosecution had not pursued.

“Care needs to be taken in selecting the correct offence,” he said.