A former Warminster man jailed ten years ago for molesting two girls, aged six and nine, indecently assaulted a seven-year-old child nearly a decade later after seeing her naked in a bath, a jury heard.

Despite being barred by law from being alone with little girls, Daniel Freeman, 41, formerly of Boreham Road, Warminster, took the chance to sexually abuse the young lass in the few moments while no one else was around, Guildford Crown Court was told.

“You couldn’t help yourself, could you?” suggested prosecuting counsel Wendy Cottee while she was cross-examining the defendant during a trial on Friday August 4.

Freeman, now of Loddon Way, Ash, Surrey, denies a charge of sexually assaulting the seven-year-old girl while she was staying as a guest at his home in October last year.

He is alleged to have touched the child’s naked private parts after another adult had bathed her.

The jury heard that Freeman had been placed under strict legal regulations banning him from having unsupervised access to young girls after he had been found guilty at another trial in October 2007 of three offences of indecent assault and two of sexual assault.

It was revealed that the defendant had molested a six-year-old girl in 2002 while he was living at Bridge Street, Godalming, and a nine-year-old girl in 2006 while he was living in Boreham Road, Warminster.

Ms Cottee said that the defendant had been sent to prison for three and a half years at Guildford Crown Court in November 2007 for the two sets of offences.

But despite all the subsequent safeguarding measures, she said, Freeman had re-offended nine years later.

During cross-examination, Ms Cottee said: “Because you are attracted to young girls in the six-to-nine-year age-range, nothing has changed. It’s still there, isn’t it?”

Ms Cottee said that Freeman had gone to peek at the seven-year-old girl while she was naked having a bath.

Moments later, said the prosecuting counsel, Freeman took the opportunity to sexually touch the child in the short time he was by himself with her.

The court was told that the defendant voluntarily rang the police himself after the child’s angry mum phoned him to accuse him of sexually assaulting her daughter.

But Ms Cottee said that Freeman’s action in contacting the police had been a “pre-emptive strike” because he was well aware that he would be reported for the incident last autumn.

She said that the defendant was “lying” to the jury now in the same way as he had “lied” at his trial ten years ago.

But Freeman insisted that he had never touched the seven-year-old. He said that because of his previous offending, he had taken great care never to be alone with a young girl.

Under cross-examination, he agreed he had denied the previous offences at his 2007 trial but had later confessed his crimes to friends because he had felt so ashamed of himself.

“What I did back then was unforgiveable,” he said.

But since that time, said Freeman, he had received help from an organisation which specialises in treating sex offenders.

“I’m not sexually attracted to young girls any more,” he said.

The trial continues.