A man charged with attempted abduction of a child during a Morris Dancing competition in Flint has been remanded in custody today.
The case against defendant Krzysztof Ogonowski, 50, was sent to the crown court.
Ogonowski, of Maes y Coed in Flint, is charged with the attempted abduction of a four-year-old girl at Flint on Sunday where hundreds of children were said to be attending a Morris Dancing Majorettes competition.
The charge alleges that on August 20 at The Jade Jones Pavilion in Flint, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he attempted to take the child, under the age of 16, so as to remove her from the lawful control of her mother.
He followed the proceedings with the aid of a Polish interpreter and indicated a not guilty plea from the dock.
Prosecutor James Neary told Flintshire Magistrates’ Court at Mold that the case should be dealt with at the crown court.
He said it was the prosecution case that the defendant had approached the child outside the leisure centre, took her by the hand and tried to lead her away.
The defendant appeared from custody.
Mr Neary asked for a remand in custody for various reasons including concerns over his address and what he termed a significant risk of harm to the defendant’s own well-being.
He said that understandably the case had been publicised in the media and it had also been widely publicised on social media.
“The police tell me that the defendant’s whereabouts are known and people have made very clear what their intentions towards him are,” he explained.
There was therefore a particular risk of harm to the defendant himself, the prosecutor said.
The hearing was adjourned at one stage this afternoon for the defendant to give further instructions to his lawyer.
But when defending solicitor Neil Catherall returned to court he said he would not apply for bail at this stage.
District Judge Gwyn Jones said that the defendant would be remanded in custody pending a plea and trial preparation hearing at Mold Crown Court on September 22.
Among the reasons the judge gave, he said he took into account the nature and seriousness of the offence and likely sentence should he be convicted.
As the defendant left the court he asked if he could have a cigarette – and the judge said no, and added that he would be unable to have one in prison either.
An order was made that the child not be publicly identified.