MICHAEL JENSON SHOTTON CHILDREN'S REFEREE CAUGHT WITH INDECENT IMAGES IN FLINTSHIRE AND CHESTER

In September 2019, a disturbing case emerged involving Michael Jenson, a children's football referee with connections to Shotton in Flintshire and Chester. Jenson was found to have downloaded and stored indecent images of young girls, some as young as 12 months old, directly onto his mobile device. The severity of his actions was highlighted during his court appearance at Mold Crown Court, where he pleaded guilty to charges related to the creation and possession of child sex abuse images.

Jenson, aged 28 at the time, was identified as having a collection of 160 images and videos on his phone. Among these, 21 were classified as the most serious category, indicating the explicit nature of the content. Court proceedings revealed that Jenson was aware that law enforcement authorities were monitoring his activities, yet he continued to seek out and view these illicit images, driven by an apparent obsession that overrode his awareness of the risks involved.

At the time of his arrest, Jenson was residing in Leicester, but his previous ties to Shotton and Chester were emphasized during the case. The court also uncovered evidence of his online searches, which included terms related to underage sexual activity, further underscoring the disturbing nature of his interests.

In sentencing, Judge Niclas Parry imposed a ten-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, along with a requirement for Jenson to undertake 40 days of rehabilitation. Additionally, he was ordered to participate in a program run by the prosecution service aimed at reducing the likelihood of reoffending. To protect the community, especially minors, Jenson was also subjected to a ten-year sexual harm prevention order, which explicitly prohibits him from having any contact with girls under the age of 16.

The judge referenced a letter from the Cheshire Football Association, which raised concerns about Jenson’s role as a referee. This concern was a significant factor in the decision to impose the sexual harm prevention order, a measure not typically applied in cases involving non-contact offenses. Judge Parry acknowledged Jenson’s apparent lack of intent to engage in contact with minors but emphasized the potential harm caused by his actions.

In his remarks, Judge Parry stated, “Since at least 2016, by your own admission, you have been seeking out indecent images because you hold sexual thoughts towards children.” He further emphasized the devastating impact such images have on victims, noting, “They endure the pain and suffering that is shown,” and underscored the importance of safeguarding children from such exploitation.