Online 'catsfishing' sex predator David John Andrews from Belfast loses legal challenge
An online sex predator from Belfast who trapped dozens of children across the United Kingdom has lost a legal challenge to his 27-year prison term.
The Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that the sentence imposed on David John Andrews, 56, for catfishing young victims and the “sickening” abuse of a profoundly disabled adult was completely justified.


Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan described his campaign of offending, which involved posing as a teenage boy on social media to lure girls into sending him explicit images, as shocking and disturbing. “This is a modern scourge of high seriousness directed at vulnerable children which requires punishment,” she said.
Andrews admitted 130 separate charges, including multiple counts of inciting children into sexual activity, disclosing private images with intent to cause distress, harassment and blackmail.
He also pleaded guilty to attempted rape and sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder.
Andrews preyed on a total of 47 victims - all but one of them children aged as young as eight.
With many of the offences stretching back to 2019, he used Snapchat and Instagram to target underage girls.
Police commenced an investigation following a report from Derbyshire that a number of victims had been groomed online by a man living in Northern Ireland using the alias of a 13-year-old boy.
Detectives raided Andrews home and seized electronic devices which revealed the full extent of his catfishing methods, where fake personas were created to manipulate and trap children online.
In one incident images he had procured from a girl by deception were then sent to her school friends.
In December last year Andrews received a 27-year prison sentence, at least half of which must be served behind bars.
Appealing the jail term, defence barrister Niall Hunt KC claimed the trial judge was wrong to impose consecutive sentences for the three separately grouped sets of offences.
Dismissing the challenge, the three appeal judges endorsed the trial judge’s assessment of his offending as “prolific and chilling”.