Medway sex offender breaches court order

Kent Police has a team of officers dedicated to checking the conduct of registered sex offenders, to ensure they are complying with any conditions imposed by a court following a conviction.

Paul Webster was issued with a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) following his conviction on 1 September 2017 at Maidstone Crown Court, for making indecent images of children.

The SHPO had several prohibitions around his use of the internet, alongside a requirement to allow officers to inspect his computers and other devices.

Inspection 

On Wednesday 14 February 2024, two officers visited Webster’s home and asked him to present any phones or computers in his possession for inspection. He gave the constables a phone that was not enabled for the internet and claimed he had no other devices.

A search of the premises found two internet enabled phones, one under a pillow, 11 USB sticks and an SD card. One of the phones contained indecent images of children including some in the most serious category, and a browser that did not retain internet history.

Webster’s actions were evidence of multiple breaches of his SHPO. Officers also found he had acquired a bank card without notifying the police, in contravention of his sex offender notification requirements.

Investigators charged Webster, of Railway Street, Chatham, with making indecent images of a child, failing to comply with sex offender notification requirements and breaching a sexual harm prevention order.

Sentenced

Webster pleaded guilty at Maidstone Crown Court and, on Friday 20 December 2024, the 56 year old was jailed for three years and nine months.

PC Areolito Gashi said:

‘The whole point of giving convicted sex offenders sexual harm prevention orders and notification requirements is to allow them to prove that they can be trusted to live safely within our communities. This trust comes with the knowledge that police officers can visit their homes at any time to check they are following the conditions imposed on them.
‘Webster has blatantly breached several prohibitions and as a result finds himself in prison. Other offenders in his situation should consider the likely sanctions should they fail to follow the restrictions on their conduct.’