KEVIN DRINKWATER FROM REDDITCH AND SOLIHULL ESCAPES JAIL AFTER GROOMING TEEN BOY

In a case that has raised serious concerns about the safety of young boys and the effectiveness of previous convictions, Kevin Drinkwater, a 50-year-old resident of Tenbury Close, Church Hill, Redditch, was spared a prison sentence despite his admitted grooming behavior towards a 14-year-old boy. The incident took place in the Solihull area, where Drinkwater’s actions have now come under intense scrutiny.

Drinkwater had previously been convicted in 2003 for indecently assaulting boys, a crime that resulted in a two-year prison sentence. Despite this, he was subject to a three-year community order that mandated participation in a sex offenders programme. However, his latest conduct suggests that he did not fully adhere to the conditions of his previous sentence, leading to questions about the adequacy of the measures in place.

The recent case came to light when Drinkwater, who is an FA-qualified referee with a longstanding interest in football, began frequenting local football matches. His initial visits were innocent, as he watched a youth football team and was later invited to observe a junior team where the 14-year-old victim played. Over time, Drinkwater developed a friendly relationship with the boy and his father, attending matches and engaging in casual conversations. According to the court, there was no initial sexual intent, but this changed as Drinkwater’s feelings towards the boy became increasingly inappropriate.

Prosecutor James Dunstan outlined the basis of Drinkwater’s plea, revealing that the defendant acknowledged that his feelings had shifted from innocent interest to sexual attraction. The court heard that Drinkwater had expressed a desire to enter the boy’s changing room, hoping to derive sexual gratification from seeing him unclothed. He also admitted to contemplating future physical contact with the boy for his own sexual pleasure. The court was told that the boy sensed something was unusual, but his father initially dismissed these concerns, attributing them to the boy’s footballing enthusiasm.

However, the truth emerged in October of the previous year when the boy’s parents discovered a series of text messages on his phone. These messages included requests for pictures of the boy in his school uniform and in a “sexy pose.” Drinkwater had convinced the boy that these images were for a calendar he was making as a gift for his parents. When police intervened, Drinkwater denied having any sexual feelings towards the boy, attempting to downplay his actions.

During the court proceedings, Drinkwater’s defense attorney, John Attwood, argued that his client’s behavior was voyeuristic and involved touching, but no substantive sexual offence was committed. He emphasized that Drinkwater had the opportunity to act further but chose not to, and that his intentions were the core issue. The defense highlighted that Drinkwater had begun to derive an erotic charge from his interactions with the boy, which was a matter of concern.

Judge Richard Griffith-Jones sentenced Drinkwater to a series of stringent measures. He ordered him to register as a sex offender for five years and imposed a 20-year sexual offences prevention order. Under this order, Drinkwater is prohibited from associating with or befriending any boy under 17 without prior approval from the Chief Constable. He is also barred from engaging in any paid, unpaid, or voluntary activities that could bring him into contact with minors under 17, and from staying overnight at any residence where a boy under 17 resides.

The judge acknowledged that the victim was fortunate not to have been harmed, thanks to the protective environment provided by his family. Nonetheless, he emphasized that the most effective way to prevent future harm was to subject Drinkwater to a long-term program aimed at changing his thought patterns. In addition, Drinkwater was ordered to pay costs amounting to £722. The judge concluded by stating that while imprisonment was an option, the measures imposed would serve as a more effective safeguard for the community and particularly for vulnerable young boys.