PAUL PARHAM FROM CLACTON BUSTED FOR SEEKING INDECENT IMAGES OF GIRLS IN BREACH OF SEX OFFENDER ORDER

In April 2021, authorities uncovered disturbing evidence linking Paul Parham, a known sex offender from Clacton, to the illegal viewing and possession of indecent images of young girls. Parham, aged 55, had previously been subjected to a sexual harm prevention order in 2016 following his conviction on three counts of creating indecent images of children. This order was intended to restrict his access to such material and prevent further offending, but it was later found to have been violated in 2019.

Police executed a search warrant at Parham’s residence in Clacton, specifically requesting that he disclose all digital devices capable of storing images. During the search, officers discovered two iPhones in his bedroom. One of these devices had its browser set to private mode, which was a clear breach of the existing order. Further investigation revealed the presence of two additional iPhones, which Parham had failed to disclose. These were found hidden in a locked glove box within his vehicle, raising suspicions about his attempts to conceal his activities.

On one of the devices, authorities recovered a category C indecent video depicting a 14-year-old girl. Additionally, police found bookmarks indicating a sexual interest in teenage girls, along with search terms and browsing history that confirmed Parham’s ongoing attempts to locate and view images of young adolescents. The evidence pointed to a pattern of behavior where Parham actively sought out material that involved minors, despite the restrictions placed upon him.

Paul Parham, who resides on Carisbrooke Avenue in Clacton, admitted to making an indecent image of a child. He also pleaded guilty to two counts of failing to comply with notification requirements and three breaches of his sexual harm prevention order. During the court proceedings, it was highlighted that Parham bore a significant responsibility for his aging parents, both in their 70s, which added a layer of complexity to his case.

Judge David Turner QC addressed Parham directly, stating, “You say in your letter to me that you’ve had time to reflect on your life and you understand your reckless and thoughtless actions will have consequences. Indeed they will.” The judge expressed a dilemma about how to proceed, weighing the possibility of immediate imprisonment against the potential for a more rehabilitative approach that might better serve the public and Parham himself in the long run.

Ultimately, Parham was sentenced to 15 months in prison, suspended for two years. He was also ordered to complete a rehabilitation program and was subjected to a ten-year sexual harm prevention order, designed to monitor and restrict his future conduct.