Paedo firefighter who pressured woman, 13, to have intercourse with him in again of his accomplice’s automobile after assembly her at college open day is jailed

A paedophile who showed ‘no remorse or understanding’ for abusing two underage girls has been jailed for 13 years.

Scott Cameron, 41, targeted his victim after meeting her at a school open day. The former firefighter subsequently pressured the 13-year-old into sending him explicit images and having sex in the back of his partner’s car.

Cameron, from Norris Green, was found guilty of multiple charges, including six counts of sexual activity with a girl aged 13–15, sexual communication with a child, meeting a child following sexual grooming and two counts of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.

He was also convicted of a further count of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity involving a second victim, dating back to the early 2000s.

Cameron was sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court to 12 years in prison for the recent offences, with an additional consecutive 12-month sentence for the historical abuse.

The court also imposed an extended six-year licence period for sexual offences against children.

Ex-Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service firefighter Cameron first contacted his victim after she and a friend left a ‘childish’ thank you letter to one of his co-workers following a visit the fire service took to their school.

The card contained the victim’s phone number – which Cameron used to reach out to her.

The father-of-two preyed on the girl, asking for images of her in a bikini and calling her ‘gorgeous.’

The paedophile then demanded that she send naked pictures to him, and that if she did not comply, he would share the other images online.

Cameron – who initially disguised his identity to the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons – then invited the her to meet him ‘in the woods’ after revealing who he was.

The two-year relationship turned sexual after the victim described ‘meeting up with Cameron and losing her virginity to him in the back of his partner’s car.’

The paedophile denied engaging in any sexual activity with the girl, however, later admitted sexual activity had taken place but that he thought she was of legal age.

Sentencing, Judge David Swinnerton said: ‘There was a lengthy trial in relation to the first victim. That jury didn’t acquit you, although it seems you told your family that they did. 

‘The retrial I also heard, and the jury convicted you of every count that they had before them.

‘There’s another indictment that relates to an earlier period of time. It relates to a second victim when she was {underage] and you were in your 20s. 

‘Sending her messages, anonymously asking her if she was a virgin, asking her for naked photos, offering cash for naked photos, and asking her to meet you on the path on the estate where you lived.

‘There are similarities between that and your initial contact with the other victim, years later. She thought you were a firefighter to whom she had written a letter. 

‘You were particularly focused on her virginity. You asked her repeatedly for naked photos. You also asked her to meet with you and she did, and things moved on from there.

‘Matters began when she was 13. You were more than 20 years older than her. That’s a substantial disparity in age. That’s a substantial aggravating factor.

‘You went to her school with other fire officers and you didn’t speak on that occasion, but she took a shine, it would seem, to another fire officer to whom she and a friend sent a letter. That letter was extremely childish.

‘It was obviously written by a child in coloured pens with hearts and smiley faces, and in it they said [their ages]. It was childish because they were children and other firefighters used that as an excuse to tease the firefighter who received it

‘Whereas others thought it was amusing, you took that it had the victim’s phone number on it. She began to hear from you, thinking you were the firefighter she had written to.

‘You were hiding your identity, taking advantage of the fact she thought you were someone else. Your communication was grooming. 

‘You told her she was pretty, asked her if she had a boyfriend, told her she was gorgeous, asked her if she was a virgin. What these messages show me is that you are a man with a sexual interest in [underage] girls.

‘You continued to pester her. She sent you semi-clothed pictures and ultimately naked pictures. You threatened and blackmailed her with these, threatening to share them with other people if she didn’t show you more.

‘You did meet with her. After that first meeting you discussed that you would kiss the next time you met and also you did, and matters moved on.

‘You sent her sexualised messages and sometimes very unpleasant messages. You continued to meet and you began a sexual relationship with her. You, I find, knew full well she was underage and yet you continued.

‘She would have to sneak out of the house late at night. Sometimes you would just leave her there to stand frightened in the dark, because no doubt you had obligations to your partner and children and work. But sometimes you did meet up. You did to have sex more than once.

‘There were other occasions in your partner’s car where sexual activity took place. Sex in her house took place on occasion when her mother was at work.

‘All of this went on for two years. There were six months of grooming, and a period where sexual activity took place.

‘Part of that period was when the victim told you that she had been raped by another man. That other man is serving a very lengthy sentence. 

‘She sought help from you, an adult man she felt she was in a consensual relationship with, and your response to this child who came to you for help was frankly jaw-dropping in how utterly cold and selfish it was.

‘You wanted nothing to do with it really, other than express your own jealousy. The victim was shocked by your callousness and selfishness.

‘That has had a substantial impact on both victims and I commend them for facing you in court, because that shows great strength. But you have had a substantial detrimental impact on their lives in their formative years.’

Turning to the matter of dangerousness, Judge Swinnerton said: ‘I’m satisfied that you do present a risk. I have considered the pre-sentence report, I have considered the offences, I have considered the persistence with which you pursued these two young girls, and I also bear in mind what I have seen of you in giving evidence before me.

‘You continue to show no remorse or understanding. Having heard your evidence, particularly your response to the victim seeking help after being raped, your arrogance and selfishness was jaw-dropping.’

Judge Swinnerton added that Cameron prioritised his own ‘personal gratification’ and was ‘a high risk of serious harm to children.’

Cameron will remain on the Sex Offenders Register for life.

He is classed as a dangerous offender, has been barred from working with children, issued with a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) and restraining orders for both victims.