JASON WATKIN FROM ORTON GOLDAHY SENTENCED FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES INVOLVING A TEENAGER IN PETERBOROUGH
| Red Rose Database
Orton Goldhay Child Sexual Abuser
In a case that has sent shockwaves through the community of Orton Goldhay and the wider Peterborough area, Jason Watkin, aged 38, was found guilty of engaging in a series of disturbing sexual activities with a minor. The court heard how Watkin, a father of three, had initiated a troubling relationship with a 15-year-old girl he met through an internet chatroom, despite being warned by police about the dangers of such interactions.
Back in November 2003, police had issued a clear warning to Watkin after he and a friend had been involved in texting a different 15-year-old girl. Despite this caution, less than a year later, Watkin resumed contact with a young girl, this time through online messaging. Initially, the girl claimed she was 16, but the truth about her age was soon revealed when Watkin began to pick her up from her school in Peterborough.
According to court reports, Watkin would take the girl to a secluded area in Peterborough in his car, which had blacked-out windows, raising serious concerns about his intentions. The situation escalated as he continued to pursue the relationship, ignoring the earlier police warnings. The girl’s family became aware of the inappropriate relationship in October 2004 when teachers alerted them, leading to Watkin being turned away from their home.
However, the court heard that Watkin did not stay away for long. He quickly re-established contact with the girl, showering her with gifts and providing her with a mobile phone to facilitate their communication. The situation worsened when a member of a local youth group reported to the police that the girl had shown them a video clip on her phone depicting Watkin engaged in sexual activity.
Further disturbing details emerged when Watkin took the girl to meet his children and his 70-year-old mother at his residence in Bringhurst, Orton Goldhay. This act demonstrated a blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of the young girl, as well as a failure to recognize the severity of his actions.
During the proceedings, defense lawyer Jenni Dempster argued that since his arrest in February of the previous year, social services had taken measures to prevent Watkin from being alone with his children, emphasizing that he did not pose a typical sexual predator profile. She expressed her client’s remorse, stating that Watkin looked back on his actions with “utter disbelief” and insisted he never set out to commit any criminal offense.
Judge Peter De Mille, presiding over the case at Peterborough Crown Court, sentenced Watkin to a total of two years in prison. The sentence encompassed multiple charges, including sexual activity with a girl under 16, inciting a girl under 16 to engage in sexual activity, and making a child between 13 and 17 watch an image of sexual activity. All sentences are to run concurrently. Additionally, Watkin was ordered to register as a sex offender and was issued a Sexual Offenders Provision Order. This order prohibits him from communicating with girls under 16 in internet chatrooms, working with minors of that age, or engaging in any form of contact with girls under 16 without supervision.
As the court concluded, the case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of vigilance and the dangers posed by online interactions, especially for vulnerable minors and those who ignore police warnings about such conduct.
Back in November 2003, police had issued a clear warning to Watkin after he and a friend had been involved in texting a different 15-year-old girl. Despite this caution, less than a year later, Watkin resumed contact with a young girl, this time through online messaging. Initially, the girl claimed she was 16, but the truth about her age was soon revealed when Watkin began to pick her up from her school in Peterborough.
According to court reports, Watkin would take the girl to a secluded area in Peterborough in his car, which had blacked-out windows, raising serious concerns about his intentions. The situation escalated as he continued to pursue the relationship, ignoring the earlier police warnings. The girl’s family became aware of the inappropriate relationship in October 2004 when teachers alerted them, leading to Watkin being turned away from their home.
However, the court heard that Watkin did not stay away for long. He quickly re-established contact with the girl, showering her with gifts and providing her with a mobile phone to facilitate their communication. The situation worsened when a member of a local youth group reported to the police that the girl had shown them a video clip on her phone depicting Watkin engaged in sexual activity.
Further disturbing details emerged when Watkin took the girl to meet his children and his 70-year-old mother at his residence in Bringhurst, Orton Goldhay. This act demonstrated a blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of the young girl, as well as a failure to recognize the severity of his actions.
During the proceedings, defense lawyer Jenni Dempster argued that since his arrest in February of the previous year, social services had taken measures to prevent Watkin from being alone with his children, emphasizing that he did not pose a typical sexual predator profile. She expressed her client’s remorse, stating that Watkin looked back on his actions with “utter disbelief” and insisted he never set out to commit any criminal offense.
Judge Peter De Mille, presiding over the case at Peterborough Crown Court, sentenced Watkin to a total of two years in prison. The sentence encompassed multiple charges, including sexual activity with a girl under 16, inciting a girl under 16 to engage in sexual activity, and making a child between 13 and 17 watch an image of sexual activity. All sentences are to run concurrently. Additionally, Watkin was ordered to register as a sex offender and was issued a Sexual Offenders Provision Order. This order prohibits him from communicating with girls under 16 in internet chatrooms, working with minors of that age, or engaging in any form of contact with girls under 16 without supervision.
As the court concluded, the case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of vigilance and the dangers posed by online interactions, especially for vulnerable minors and those who ignore police warnings about such conduct.