PATRICK JENKINS FROM CARDIFF AND DORCHESTER SHOCKS COMMUNITY WITH CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE

In December 2012, Patrick Jenkins, a man originally from Cardiff and residing in Dorchester, found himself at the center of a disturbing criminal case involving the possession and distribution of indecent images of children. Jenkins, aged 32 and living on Thornhill Close in Dorchester, was convicted of downloading a staggering total of 1,275 such images, which ranged from less severe to the most serious levels of abuse. This case drew significant attention from both the legal community and child protection advocates, highlighting the ongoing issues surrounding online exploitation and the importance of stringent measures to prevent reoffending.

Jenkins’s criminal activities came to light after police investigations following his arrest in May 2010. Authorities discovered the illicit images stored on two of his personal computers. The images were classified into various levels of severity, with the majority being at level one, indicating less serious content, but also including over 200 images at level four and a small number at level five, which is considered the most severe form of child exploitation material. The charges against Jenkins included 21 counts of making indecent images of children, which he denied throughout the trial.

During a three-day trial at Dorchester Crown Court, a jury of seven men and five women deliberated for approximately two and a half hours before returning guilty verdicts on all counts. The court heard that Jenkins had been employed as a chemistry teacher at Thomas Hardye School in Dorchester until his arrest, although none of the charges related to children at the school. The jury’s decision underscored the severity of his actions and the potential risk posed to the community.

Following his conviction, Judge Roger Jarvis sentenced Jenkins to a total of 32 weeks in prison for each of the charges involving the most serious images, specifically levels four and five. For the remaining images at levels one, two, and three, Jenkins received sentences of 10 weeks per charge. These sentences are to be served concurrently, meaning Jenkins will serve the maximum sentence for the most serious charges. The judge also emphasized the unusual nature of the case, noting that Jenkins’s methods to conceal his activities surprised investigators and that he had never admitted to his crimes.

In addition to his imprisonment, Jenkins was subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO), which was imposed at the same hearing. This order, valid for ten years, restricts Jenkins from using any device capable of accessing the internet outside of a work environment, prohibits him from deleting browsing histories, and mandates that he make any devices he owns available for police inspection upon request. The order aims to prevent any future access to illegal material and to monitor Jenkins’s activities closely.

Robin Shellard, representing Jenkins in mitigation, argued that the time between Jenkins’s arrest and conviction showed no evidence of reoffending or any direct harm to children. He described Jenkins as a man of previous good character, intelligent, sensitive, and articulate, who had much to offer society. Shellard lamented the impact of the case on Jenkins’s life, noting that his career as a teacher and his academic achievements, including a doctorate in electro-engineering, had been irreparably damaged. He emphasized that Jenkins’s actions did not involve children at Thomas Hardye School and that his entire professional and personal life had been upended.

However, the prosecution, represented by Rufus Taylor, highlighted the need for strict measures to prevent any future offenses. Taylor pointed out Jenkins’s efforts to disguise his activities and his failure to admit guilt, reinforcing the necessity of the SOPO and other restrictions. The court’s decision reflected a recognition of the serious nature of the crimes and the importance of safeguarding children from exploitation and harm. The case served as a stark reminder of the ongoing threat posed by online predators and the critical role of law enforcement and judicial systems in addressing such offenses.