MICHAEL PARFITT SENTENCED IN BATH AND HILPERTON FOR CHILD ABUSE IMAGE OFFENSES

In September 2016, a man identified as Michael Parfitt was handed a prison sentence of two years and eight months after being convicted of multiple charges related to the distribution and possession of indecent images of children. The case drew significant attention due to the disturbing nature of the material involved and the defendant's prior history.

Parfitt, who was initially apprehended in connection with investigations into users of a file sharing network, was found to have engaged in the dissemination of highly disturbing child abuse images. The authorities traced his online activities back to his residence in Marshmead, Hilperton, where they executed a search warrant. At the time of his arrest, Parfitt was residing in Bath, specifically at Cotswold View.

During the search, law enforcement officers confiscated multiple computers and storage devices. A thorough examination of these items revealed a large collection of illicit images and videos depicting child abuse, many classified as Category A, indicating the most severe level of harm. Additionally, chat logs from various online conversations were recovered, in which Parfitt explicitly discussed kidnapping children, selling them, and his intentions to harm minors. The content of these chats demonstrated a disturbing preoccupation with child exploitation.

One particularly shocking detail was that among the videos found, there was one depicting a child being abused so severely that even Parfitt himself appeared distressed by it. This revelation underscored the depravity of his actions and the disturbing nature of his online activities.

At the court hearing, Parfitt, now residing in Bath, pleaded guilty to charges of distributing and possessing indecent images of children. The court was informed that he had a prior conviction at the age of 17 for creating indecent images, which resulted in a referral order. Despite this earlier intervention, the court noted that Parfitt continued to engage in similar criminal behavior.

Defense counsel Mike Jeary argued that the images had been shared online with like-minded individuals and criticized the effectiveness of the previous youth referral order, stating that Parfitt had received minimal support or intervention beyond a probation officer. Jeary emphasized that since his latest arrest, Parfitt had taken steps to improve himself, including completing an internet safety course and maintaining employment, and was considered a productive member of society.

However, Judge Peter Blair QC was unequivocal in his sentencing remarks. He stated that the offences clearly warranted a prison sentence and expressed particular concern over the nature of the material involved. The judge highlighted that the images and videos involved very young children, with some depicting sexual activity, and that the material was not only downloaded but also shared among others.

Judge Blair pointed out that the images ranged across multiple categories, including the most severe Category A, and involved a significant number of moving images, which indicated a high level of depravity. He also noted that this was not Parfitt’s first encounter with the criminal justice system concerning such offences, implying a pattern of behavior that had not been effectively addressed in the past.

In addition to his prison sentence, Parfitt was ordered to register as a sex offender for life and was subject to a sexual harm prevention order. This order restricts his access to the internet and aims to prevent further offending. The case serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing efforts by law enforcement to combat online child exploitation and the importance of stringent sentencing for such heinous crimes.