COLIN PERKINS FROM SWYFFRYD ESCAPES JAIL AFTER CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DISCOVERY IN GWENT

In April 2017, a man from Swyffryd, named Colin Perkins, faced serious allegations after authorities uncovered a disturbing collection of indecent images and videos involving children. Despite the gravity of the evidence, Perkins was able to avoid immediate imprisonment, though he faced significant legal consequences.

Perkins, aged 43, appeared before Cardiff Crown Court on a Wednesday to admit to three charges related to the creation of indecent images. The charges stemmed from an incident on Wednesday, April 5, when police brought him into custody. His arrest took place two days earlier, on Monday, April 3, during a police raid conducted at his residence on Bronawelon Terrace in Swyffryd, a suburb known for its working-class community in Gwent.

During the court proceedings, the prosecution outlined the details of the police investigation. Officers recovered a Lenovo tower computer from Perkins’ home, which contained a total of 33 indecent images and videos of children. The content was classified into different categories based on severity: eight videos were identified as Category A, indicating the most serious level of offending, with seven videos falling into Category B, and a mixture of 18 still images and videos categorized as Category C. These classifications reflect the disturbing nature of the material involved.

When questioned by police about the presence of such material in his home, Perkins offered no response. He remained silent when asked if there were any indecent images of children stored on his computer. Prosecutor Julian Greenwood detailed that Perkins had answered “no comment” during police interviews, despite the evidence pointing to his involvement.

Further investigation revealed that Perkins had used a password-protected computer to access the illicit content. He claimed to officers that he used the computer primarily for watching films, browsing YouTube, and applying for jobs. He also stated that his preferences did not include child pornography and that he no longer found adult pornography appealing. However, Greenwood noted that Perkins’s responses during subsequent interviews showed a degree of inconsistency and equivocation.

In a follow-up interview, Perkins admitted responsibility for downloading the images but claimed he had no knowledge of doing so. He accepted responsibility for the Category B videos but insisted he had not viewed them. When shown a Category A video, he remarked that he “must’ve downloaded it,” suggesting some awareness of the material. His defense characterized him as naive and reckless, though the evidence painted a troubling picture of deliberate possession.

Addressing the court, Perkins’ legal representative, Ieuan Rees, highlighted Perkins’ personal circumstances. Rees explained that his client was unemployed and the father of a three-year-old daughter. He expressed concern that Perkins would struggle to pay any fines or costs imposed by the court.

In sentencing, Judge Tom Crowther acknowledged the seriousness of the case. He described Perkins’ actions as stemming from “the depths of depravity” and emphasized the harm inflicted on the children depicted in the images. The judge stated, “Every one of those children is a real child that is being deliberately abused to satisfy the market in this material. This market is grown and is maintained by people like you. This was not a victimless crime.”

Ultimately, Perkins was sentenced to eight months in prison, but the sentence was suspended for two years, meaning he would not serve time unless he committed another offence within that period. As part of his rehabilitation, Perkins is required to complete a course of therapy and perform 120 hours of unpaid community service. Following his conviction, he is now registered as a sex offender, underlining the serious consequences of his actions and the ongoing efforts to monitor and rehabilitate offenders involved in such heinous crimes.