Man Jailed After Encouraging Teen Girl to Send Explicit Photos, St Helens  2026

Key Points

• Alexander Harrison of Haydock has been imprisoned for sending sexual messages to a minor girl.
• Harrison persuaded the girl to send nude photos and asked for pictures from her.
• The court heard that he knew about the girl’s age throughout their conversation.
• Moreover, Harrison sent the girl a pornographic photo of himself once.
• These indecent conversations started in April 2021, according to the prosecution.
• These offenses were reported in early 2023 when the girl’s mother found out about the message exchange.
• Harrison pleaded guilty to communicating sexually with a child and encouraging a girl into sexual activity.
• He was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court on Wednesday, August 5, 2026.
• The sentence was mitigated as Harrison pleaded guilty in the lower court from the very beginning.
• He got a two-and-a-half-year sentence of imprisonment.
• Harrison was ordered not to have any contact with the victim under a restraining order.
• Furthermore, Harrison was added to the Sex Offenders Register for life.
• Additionally, he was given a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

 St Helens Crime (Liverpool standard) August 7, 2026 – Alexander Harrison has been jailed after exchanging sexual messages with a teenage girl, encouraging her to send naked photographs and sending her an explicit image of himself. He was sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court after pleading guilty to sexual communication with a child and inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity.

The case was reported by the uk/local/st-helens/">St Helens Star under the headline “Man who encouraged teenage girl to send naked photos jailed”. The same court report was also published by the Leigh Journal. The retrieved reports did not display a named journalist, so the case details are attributed to the publications rather than to an individual author.

According to the reports, the communications between Harrison and the girl began in April 2021. The court heard that Harrison knew the girl’s age but continued to send messages of a sexual nature. The exchanges continued until the conduct was discovered by the girl’s mother in early 2023.

The discovery of the messages led to the matter being brought to the attention of the authorities. The reports do not provide further information about the investigation process, including when Harrison was arrested, the digital evidence examined by police or the specific circumstances in which the charges were brought.

What did the court hear about the messages?

Hannah Menary, prosecuting, told the court that Harrison repeatedly sent the teenager sexual messages. The prosecution said that the girl sent naked images of herself to Harrison at his request. The reports identify the conduct as involving sexual communication with a child and the incitement of a girl to engage in sexual activity.

The court was also told that Harrison sent the girl an explicit photograph of himself on one occasion. This formed part of the reported pattern of inappropriate communication between Harrison and the teenage victim.

The prosecution’s account, as reported by the Leigh Journal, said Harrison was aware of the girl’s age. That detail was significant to the case because it established that the communications involved a known teenage victim rather than an unidentified adult contact.

The reports do not publish the girl’s name or other identifying details. They also do not disclose the exact age of the victim, the communication platform used, the number of messages exchanged or the number of photographs involved.

The available account does not state whether the teenager and Harrison knew each other in person before the online or electronic communications began. It also does not give details of any face-to-face meeting. The information reported from court concerns the sexual messages, the requested naked images and the explicit photograph sent by Harrison.

Which offences did Alexander Harrison admit?

Harrison pleaded guilty to two offences: sexual communication with a child and inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity. The guilty pleas were entered at the first opportunity in the lower court, according to the published court report.

He later appeared at Liverpool Crown Court on Wednesday, August 5, where he was sentenced. The reports do not state the name of the judge who dealt with the case, nor do they provide the full wording of the sentencing remarks.

The offences relate to communications with a child and conduct designed to encourage sexual activity. The reports do not say that Harrison faced additional charges beyond the two offences listed, and no other criminal allegations are included in the available coverage.

The court report also does not provide details of Harrison’s previous convictions, if any, or say whether he was released on bail or remanded in custody before sentencing. Those details have not been added because they were not included in the reports.

What sentence did the court impose?

Alexander Harrison, of Elizabeth Road, Haydock, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. The report stated that the sentence reflected a one-third reduction for his guilty pleas at the first opportunity in the lower court.

The reduction in sentence was recorded as part of the court’s sentencing outcome. The reports do not provide the sentence that would have been imposed before the reduction or explain the court’s full reasoning for selecting the final term.

In addition to the prison sentence, Harrison was made subject to a restraining order preventing him from contacting the victim. The restriction is intended to prevent further communication between Harrison and the girl involved in the case.

The court also placed Harrison on the Sex Offenders Register for life. This requirement means that his registration will continue indefinitely, according to the published report.

Harrison was further given a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order, commonly referred to as a SHPO. The report confirms the length of the order but does not list its individual conditions.

Because the specific terms of the order were not published in the available report, it is not possible to state whether it includes restrictions on internet use, contact with children, social media activity or the use of particular devices. Those conditions should not be assumed.

What is known about Harrison and the victim?

The defendant was identified as Alexander Harrison, of Elizabeth Road, Haydock. The victim was described as a teenage girl, but her name and exact age were not reported.

The court coverage does not publish information that could identify the victim. It does not name her school, address, family members or online accounts. These details have been excluded to protect her privacy.

The reports state that the girl’s mother discovered the inappropriate messages in early 2023. The mother’s discovery was the point at which the communications came to light in the account presented to the court.

No statement from the victim or her family was included in the reports. There was also no statement from Harrison, his legal representative, Merseyside Police or the Crown Prosecution Service in the available coverage.

The absence of a published statement does not provide evidence about the wider impact of the offending. It only means that no such statement appeared in the reports reviewed for this article.

Why does the case involve online child protection concerns?

The case involved sexual communication with a teenage girl, requests for naked photographs and the sending of an explicit image. Those details show that the conduct took place through messages and image-sharing, although the reports do not specify the platform used.

The communications reportedly continued despite Harrison knowing the girl’s age. The combination of sexual messages and requests for images was presented to Liverpool Crown Court as part of the offending to which Harrison pleaded guilty.

The case also highlights the importance of safeguarding concerns being reported when a parent or carer discovers sexualised communications involving a child. In this instance, the messages were found by the girl’s mother in early 2023, after the communication had begun in April 2021.

However, the published reports do not provide general guidance from police or safeguarding organisations. They also do not state whether the case has led to any new local campaign, school warning or review of online safety procedures.

It is therefore important to separate the confirmed court facts from wider assumptions. The confirmed information is that Harrison exchanged sexual messages with the teenager, requested naked images, sent an explicit photograph and was convicted after pleading guilty. The reports do not establish how the communications began, what platform was used or whether other young people were contacted.

What restrictions will apply after Harrison’s release?

Harrison received a restraining order preventing contact with the victim. He was also given a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order and placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life.

The court report does not set out the detailed requirements attached to the Sexual Harm Prevention Order. It also does not specify the length of any post-release supervision, licence conditions or other restrictions that may apply after Harrison leaves prison.

The available information confirms that the restraining order is directed at preventing contact with the victim. It does not state whether the order includes contact through third parties, electronic messaging or social media.

The lifetime registration requirement and 10-year prevention order were separate parts of the sentence reported by the Leigh Journal. The prison term was two and a half years, with a one-third reduction for the guilty pleas.

Background to the development

The case follows a prosecution arising from sexual communications between Alexander Harrison and a teenage girl. According to the court report published by the St Helens Star and the Leigh Journal, the communication began in April 2021 and involved sexual messages, requests for naked images and an explicit photograph sent by Harrison.

The conduct came to light in early 2023 after the victim’s mother found inappropriate messages. Harrison was subsequently prosecuted and pleaded guilty to sexual communication with a child and inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity.

Liverpool Crown Court sentenced him on August 5, 2026, to two and a half years in prison. The sentence included a one-third reduction because of his early guilty pleas. The court also imposed a restraining order, lifetime registration on the Sex Offenders Register and a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

The published coverage does not include further information about the investigation, the digital platform involved, Harrison’s previous record or the detailed conditions of the prevention order.

What could this development mean for the local audience?

For families in Haydock and the wider St Helens area, the case is likely to increase attention on the risks of sexualised online communication involving children and teenagers. Parents, carers and schools may be more alert to unexplained messages, requests for intimate images or contact from adults who know a young person’s age.

The case may also encourage local readers to focus on early reporting when concerning communications are discovered. That prediction is based on the reported fact that the offending came to light after the girl’s mother found the messages; it is not a statement about any new official safeguarding policy.

For young people, the development may reinforce the importance of telling a trusted adult if someone sends sexual messages or asks for naked photographs. The court report does not publish advice from authorities, so the likely public response should not be confused with confirmed guidance.

The sentence also means that local residents will be aware of the long-term restrictions imposed on Harrison, including the lifetime Sex Offenders Register requirement, the restraining order and the 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The precise conditions of the prevention order have not been published in the available reports.