ANDREW CHAPLIN'S SHOCKING CRIMES IN BURY ST EDMUNDS: VICTIM'S MOTHER SLAMS SENTENCE
| Red Rose Database
Bury St Edmunds Sexual Abuser
In November 2017, a disturbing case involving a convicted child sex offender has once again brought to light serious concerns about the safety of children in Bury St Edmunds. The mother of a young victim expressed her deep disappointment and frustration over the leniency of the sentence handed down to Andrew Chaplin, a man with a troubling history of sexual offences.
Andrew Chaplin, a resident of Waveney Road in Bury St Edmunds, was sentenced to 20 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to charges of breaching a sexual offences prevention order and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. This plea was entered just before his trial, which was scheduled for the previous Friday. The court also mandated that Chaplin would be required to sign the sex offenders’ register and be subject to a 10-year sexual harm prevention order. These measures are part of ongoing efforts to monitor and restrict the activities of individuals with a history of sexual misconduct.
Chaplin’s criminal record includes a previous three-year jail sentence handed down at Norwich Crown Court in February 2015. Following his release, he was placed on licence and required to sign the sex offenders’ register. Despite these restrictions, concerns about his potential risk to children persisted. The recent incident involved online activity monitored by the victim’s mother and her ex-partner, which ultimately led to Chaplin’s arrest. The authorities tracked the teenager to a supermarket in Suffolk after initial contact, primarily through Facebook messages. The online exchanges reportedly began innocently but escalated when Chaplin discovered the child was heading to the supermarket, prompting him to make a move.
Details of what transpired next remain unclear, but the victim’s mother suspects that Chaplin located the child and addressed them by name. Meanwhile, her ex-partner had also driven to the supermarket, arriving at the scene to find Chaplin with the child in his vehicle. The ex-partner intervened by grabbing the car keys from the ignition and calling the police, leading to Chaplin’s immediate arrest. The mother of the victim described her feelings about the sentence as “a kick in the teeth,” emphasizing her belief that the punishment was inadequate for a repeat offender who clearly posed a significant risk to children.
She expressed her disillusionment with the current system, stating, “Being on the sex offenders’ register or on licence clearly wasn’t a deterrent in any way. There should be more serious sentences and more monitoring of these people for online activity.” The mother also warned other parents to remain vigilant, highlighting that online predators are no longer the stereotypical figures offering sweets in playgrounds. Instead, they can be present in the comfort of their own homes, engaging with children through online gaming and social media. She urged parents to be cautious and to ensure their children’s safety while online, emphasizing that children should be able to enjoy the internet without undue risk.
The Ministry of Justice was contacted for a response to the case and the concerns raised by the victim’s mother, but no statement was provided at the time of reporting.
Andrew Chaplin, a resident of Waveney Road in Bury St Edmunds, was sentenced to 20 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to charges of breaching a sexual offences prevention order and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. This plea was entered just before his trial, which was scheduled for the previous Friday. The court also mandated that Chaplin would be required to sign the sex offenders’ register and be subject to a 10-year sexual harm prevention order. These measures are part of ongoing efforts to monitor and restrict the activities of individuals with a history of sexual misconduct.
Chaplin’s criminal record includes a previous three-year jail sentence handed down at Norwich Crown Court in February 2015. Following his release, he was placed on licence and required to sign the sex offenders’ register. Despite these restrictions, concerns about his potential risk to children persisted. The recent incident involved online activity monitored by the victim’s mother and her ex-partner, which ultimately led to Chaplin’s arrest. The authorities tracked the teenager to a supermarket in Suffolk after initial contact, primarily through Facebook messages. The online exchanges reportedly began innocently but escalated when Chaplin discovered the child was heading to the supermarket, prompting him to make a move.
Details of what transpired next remain unclear, but the victim’s mother suspects that Chaplin located the child and addressed them by name. Meanwhile, her ex-partner had also driven to the supermarket, arriving at the scene to find Chaplin with the child in his vehicle. The ex-partner intervened by grabbing the car keys from the ignition and calling the police, leading to Chaplin’s immediate arrest. The mother of the victim described her feelings about the sentence as “a kick in the teeth,” emphasizing her belief that the punishment was inadequate for a repeat offender who clearly posed a significant risk to children.
She expressed her disillusionment with the current system, stating, “Being on the sex offenders’ register or on licence clearly wasn’t a deterrent in any way. There should be more serious sentences and more monitoring of these people for online activity.” The mother also warned other parents to remain vigilant, highlighting that online predators are no longer the stereotypical figures offering sweets in playgrounds. Instead, they can be present in the comfort of their own homes, engaging with children through online gaming and social media. She urged parents to be cautious and to ensure their children’s safety while online, emphasizing that children should be able to enjoy the internet without undue risk.
The Ministry of Justice was contacted for a response to the case and the concerns raised by the victim’s mother, but no statement was provided at the time of reporting.