JAMES MATTHEWS FROM SHEPTON MALLET SENTENCED FOR BREACHING COURT ORDER IN TAUNTON

In March 2018, James Matthews, a convicted sex offender residing in Shepton Mallet, was sentenced to prison after he was found to have violated a court-imposed order by secretly browsing the internet. Matthews had previously been subjected to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) following his conviction for possessing nearly 60,000 indecent images of children and committing three separate offences of outraging public decency.

The conditions of the SHPO explicitly prohibited Matthews from using any internet functions that could prevent the retention of browsing history, such as Incognito mode or private browsing features. Despite these restrictions, police officers conducted a home visit to Matthews’ residence on Norton Close, where he lived with his parents. During this visit, authorities discovered that Matthews had been using the internet’s Incognito mode, a clear violation of the court order.

Faced with evidence, Matthews admitted to the offence, explaining that his use of private browsing was an attempt to conceal his viewing of online pornography. He stated that he did not want his parents’ address in Taunton associated with his online activities, which he claimed was part of his effort to hide his past offending behavior. Matthews, aged 41, pleaded guilty to a charge that on March 8, 2017, in Shepton Mallet, he used a computer in private browsing mode to access the internet, thereby preventing any browsing history from being recorded, which was explicitly forbidden by the court order issued at Taunton Crown Court on March 18, 2016.

Prosecutor Rebecca Bradberry highlighted that Matthews’ order was a direct consequence of his previous convictions for possessing indecent images and outraging public decency. During police interviews, Matthews revealed that he used the private browsing mode to hide his consumption of pornography from others, citing shame and a desire to prevent his online activities from being linked to his parents’ address. Additionally, he admitted to engaging in online chats with other individuals, which was also prohibited under the terms of his court order.

Defense attorney Joseph Wright argued that sentencing Matthews to prison was unnecessary, emphasizing that the defendant was close to completing the term of his original order. Wright pointed out that Matthews had made full admissions during police interviews and acknowledged that his actions were foolish. He also noted that Matthews had shown a change in attitude since the incident.

However, Judge Paul Cook emphasized the seriousness of the breach, stating, “The order was imposed because you had, on your computer, over 59,000 indecent images of children. The fact is, this protective order was put into place for good reason. It was designed to allow police to monitor your internet activity, and your deliberate decision to breach it demonstrates a blatant disregard for the law.”

Judge Cook concluded that the offence was so grave that it could not be addressed through community penalties alone. As a result, Matthews was sentenced to six months in prison. Additionally, he was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £115. This case underscores the ongoing efforts to monitor and prevent online offences related to child exploitation and highlights the importance of adhering to court-imposed restrictions for convicted offenders.