ANDREW MATTHEWS FROM BREIGHTMET CAUGHT DELETING INTERNET HISTORY AFTER VIEWING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

In July 2021, a disturbing case emerged involving Andrew Matthews, a resident of Breightmet, who was found to have taken deliberate steps to conceal his online activities related to viewing child pornography. The incident unfolded when authorities from the sex offender management unit conducted a routine visit to Matthews' home on Beechcroft Drive, Breightmet, and uncovered evidence of his attempts to erase his browsing history from his electronic devices.

Matthews, aged 59 at the time, had previously been convicted in 2016 of downloading multiple indecent images of children. His prior conviction resulted in a suspended prison sentence and a sexual harm prevention order, which explicitly prohibited him from deleting or tampering with his internet browsing records. Despite these legal restrictions, Matthews was found to have removed the browsing history from both an iPhone 10 and an Apple MacBook during the police visit.

Prosecutor Eleanor Gleeson explained that Matthews claimed he had wiped the history on his iPhone because he intended to sell the device, suggesting a motive to conceal his online activity. However, the MacBook, which Matthews stated he had purchased only a week earlier, also had its browsing history erased. This act was a clear breach of the conditions set by his sexual harm prevention order.

During police interviews, Matthews admitted to viewing pornography on his laptop and explained that he deleted the internet history to prevent his wife from discovering what he had been viewing online. He acknowledged that he was aware of the restrictions imposed by his sexual harm prevention order but chose to ignore them by deleting the browsing records.

As a consequence of his actions, Matthews was sentenced to undertake 150 hours of unpaid community work. Additionally, he was ordered to participate in 25 days of rehabilitation activities aimed at addressing his offending behavior. He was also required to pay £340 towards the costs of prosecution. The case highlights ongoing concerns about compliance with court orders designed to prevent reoffending and protect the community from individuals with a history of sexual harm.