BRYN CHITTENDEN FROM ST LAWRENCE BAY SENTENCED FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN CHELMSFORD
| Red Rose Database
St Lawrence Bay Rapist
In September 2017, a serious case unfolded involving Bryn Chittenden, a 51-year-old man residing in Eye, Suffolk, but with land holdings in the coastal area of St Lawrence Bay. The proceedings took place at Chelmsford Crown Court, where Chittenden faced charges related to the sexual exploitation of a 14-year-old girl, as well as possession of indecent images and videos of children.
The court heard that Chittenden was convicted after a relatively swift jury deliberation of just 45 minutes, finding him guilty of engaging in sexual activity with the minor between January 2014 and July 2015. Prior to the trial, he had already admitted to making and possessing numerous indecent images and videos of children, which included 142 images classified as Category A, the most severe category depicting young girls being raped. The digital evidence also revealed 23 Category A images, 39 Category B images, and 160 Category C images, along with videos corresponding to each category. Among these was a disturbing image of a 13-year-old girl involved in penetrative activity with two adult males.
During the court proceedings, the victim’s father provided testimony that shed light on how Chittenden initially came into contact with the girl. He recounted that Chittenden visited their property to purchase a van, during which he discussed livestock and future plans for the land. The father stated, “Bryn had come to the house and I had a van he was interested in. We talked about the livestock and what he was planning to do in the future with the land. We sat down at the table, had a cup of tea, he seemed a very nice chap. I told him I had a... daughter who was at school. He asked me her age and I said 14. We talked about his daughters being in the same age group.”
The prosecution emphasized that the case involved significant planning, as evidenced by the exchange of messages, and highlighted the vulnerability of the victim, which they argued made the offense particularly grave. The court was also informed that Chittenden had lied during police interviews, claiming he was disgusted by the conduct, and that he believed the victim was 16 at the time of their contact.
Chittenden’s defense lawyer, Nick Bonehill, attempted to portray him as a family man who was under personal stress, noting that his partner was heavily pregnant during the trial and that their child was born just two weeks prior. He also mentioned that Chittenden had experienced a difficult divorce and maintained regular contact with his children, expressing remorse for his actions. However, Judge Jonathon Seely interrupted, stating, “Lawyers choose their words very carefully. Those words, that he is regretful of the position he is in, may be the case but you would have to persuade me otherwise. He told lies throughout the trial and was seeking to lay the blame on the victim.”
In delivering the sentence, Judge Seely emphasized the vulnerability of the victim, describing her as a deeply vulnerable child with a troubled background, which was not her fault. The judge pointed out that Chittenden was aware of her age and exploited her low self-confidence. The court noted that Chittenden had lied about his feelings, claiming to be disgusted, but his actions told a different story. The judge condemned his selfish behavior, stating, “You acted selfishly and you must now face the consequences of your actions.”
Chittenden was sentenced to six years and nine months in prison, a punishment reflecting the seriousness of his crimes. The court’s remarks underscored the gravity of the offenses, especially considering the manipulative nature of his conduct and the harm inflicted upon a vulnerable young girl. The case also highlighted the disturbing issue of child pornography, with authorities revealing that Chittenden had accessed and created material involving penetrative acts between adults and minors, further compounding the severity of his criminal record.
The court heard that Chittenden was convicted after a relatively swift jury deliberation of just 45 minutes, finding him guilty of engaging in sexual activity with the minor between January 2014 and July 2015. Prior to the trial, he had already admitted to making and possessing numerous indecent images and videos of children, which included 142 images classified as Category A, the most severe category depicting young girls being raped. The digital evidence also revealed 23 Category A images, 39 Category B images, and 160 Category C images, along with videos corresponding to each category. Among these was a disturbing image of a 13-year-old girl involved in penetrative activity with two adult males.
During the court proceedings, the victim’s father provided testimony that shed light on how Chittenden initially came into contact with the girl. He recounted that Chittenden visited their property to purchase a van, during which he discussed livestock and future plans for the land. The father stated, “Bryn had come to the house and I had a van he was interested in. We talked about the livestock and what he was planning to do in the future with the land. We sat down at the table, had a cup of tea, he seemed a very nice chap. I told him I had a... daughter who was at school. He asked me her age and I said 14. We talked about his daughters being in the same age group.”
The prosecution emphasized that the case involved significant planning, as evidenced by the exchange of messages, and highlighted the vulnerability of the victim, which they argued made the offense particularly grave. The court was also informed that Chittenden had lied during police interviews, claiming he was disgusted by the conduct, and that he believed the victim was 16 at the time of their contact.
Chittenden’s defense lawyer, Nick Bonehill, attempted to portray him as a family man who was under personal stress, noting that his partner was heavily pregnant during the trial and that their child was born just two weeks prior. He also mentioned that Chittenden had experienced a difficult divorce and maintained regular contact with his children, expressing remorse for his actions. However, Judge Jonathon Seely interrupted, stating, “Lawyers choose their words very carefully. Those words, that he is regretful of the position he is in, may be the case but you would have to persuade me otherwise. He told lies throughout the trial and was seeking to lay the blame on the victim.”
In delivering the sentence, Judge Seely emphasized the vulnerability of the victim, describing her as a deeply vulnerable child with a troubled background, which was not her fault. The judge pointed out that Chittenden was aware of her age and exploited her low self-confidence. The court noted that Chittenden had lied about his feelings, claiming to be disgusted, but his actions told a different story. The judge condemned his selfish behavior, stating, “You acted selfishly and you must now face the consequences of your actions.”
Chittenden was sentenced to six years and nine months in prison, a punishment reflecting the seriousness of his crimes. The court’s remarks underscored the gravity of the offenses, especially considering the manipulative nature of his conduct and the harm inflicted upon a vulnerable young girl. The case also highlighted the disturbing issue of child pornography, with authorities revealing that Chittenden had accessed and created material involving penetrative acts between adults and minors, further compounding the severity of his criminal record.