PAUL DIXON'S SHOCKING CRIMES IN REDDITCH: VOYEURISM AND CHILD INDECENT IMAGES REVEALED
| Red Rose Database
Redditch Rapist
In a disturbing case that has sent shockwaves through the Redditch community, Paul Dixon, a 48-year-old window cleaner residing on Foxlydiate Crescent, has admitted to serious criminal offenses involving voyeurism and the possession of indecent images of children. The revelations came to light during a court hearing at Worcester Crown Court on Friday, May 12, 2017, where Dixon pleaded guilty to two counts of voyeurism and one count of making indecent images of children.
Prior to this, Dixon had initially entered a not guilty plea at Redditch Magistrates Court but changed his stance just two days before the scheduled trial, opting to admit guilt. The case was brought to the court's attention after police investigations uncovered disturbing evidence linked to Dixon’s residence in High Trees Close, Redditch.
According to prosecutor Lal Amarasinghe, authorities received credible information indicating that indecent images of children had been downloaded at Dixon’s address. On March 22 of the previous year, police officers executed a search warrant at 7 a.m., seizing multiple electronic devices, including desktop computers, tablets, and mobile phones, for forensic analysis.
During police interviews, Dixon was questioned without legal representation. He acknowledged that the IP address associated with the devices was his but denied any knowledge of the indecent images of children. Instead, he admitted to downloading adult pornography. However, he later confessed that between January and March of the previous year, he had downloaded indecent images of children out of curiosity. He claimed to have viewed these images but deleted them immediately afterward.
The investigation revealed a total of five indecent images, with one classified as Category A, indicating the most serious level of child exploitation material. The charges of voyeurism involved two separate incidents: one where Dixon had hidden a camera in a bathroom to film a woman on the toilet, and another where he recorded footage underneath a schoolgirl’s skirt. During a police interview on January 9, Dixon responded with a simple 'no comment' when asked about the voyeuristic acts.
Defense lawyer Jennifer Josephs highlighted that the total number of indecent images was relatively low compared to other cases, which often involve hundreds or thousands of such images. She emphasized that Dixon was considered a low risk of reoffending, stating, “He has been identified as being at a low risk of reoffending. He’s in a lower risk group than around 83 per cent of sexual offenders.” She also noted that Dixon was living with his unwell mother, for whom he was a carer, and argued that remanding him in custody would cause significant hardship for her. Additionally, she mentioned that Dixon was employed as a window cleaner.
Judge Nicolas Cartwright, presiding over the case, delivered a stern warning about the gravity of Dixon’s actions. He stated, “It might be that when you created these images you simply thought this was an image. The reality is that behind the image there’s a real child somewhere in the world being abused. You have children. This is someone’s child who was raped for the sexual gratification of the people who want these images. It is the demand for these images which drives the supply.”
In sentencing, Judge Cartwright imposed a two-year community order on Dixon. This included 30 days of rehabilitation activities and 70 hours of unpaid work. Furthermore, Dixon is required to register as a sex offender for five years and pay court costs amounting to £375. A sexual harm prevention order was also issued, restricting him from having contact with children under 16 unless it is part of daily life. He is prohibited from using devices capable of internet access unless the device displays his search history, which must be made available to police upon request. The order also bans him from installing anti-forensic software or deleting his internet search history.
Additionally, Dixon is mandated to participate in a 'maps for change' program, aimed at reducing reoffending behavior. The court ordered that all devices containing the illegal images be destroyed. This case underscores the ongoing efforts of law enforcement to combat child exploitation and protect vulnerable victims from further harm.
Prior to this, Dixon had initially entered a not guilty plea at Redditch Magistrates Court but changed his stance just two days before the scheduled trial, opting to admit guilt. The case was brought to the court's attention after police investigations uncovered disturbing evidence linked to Dixon’s residence in High Trees Close, Redditch.
According to prosecutor Lal Amarasinghe, authorities received credible information indicating that indecent images of children had been downloaded at Dixon’s address. On March 22 of the previous year, police officers executed a search warrant at 7 a.m., seizing multiple electronic devices, including desktop computers, tablets, and mobile phones, for forensic analysis.
During police interviews, Dixon was questioned without legal representation. He acknowledged that the IP address associated with the devices was his but denied any knowledge of the indecent images of children. Instead, he admitted to downloading adult pornography. However, he later confessed that between January and March of the previous year, he had downloaded indecent images of children out of curiosity. He claimed to have viewed these images but deleted them immediately afterward.
The investigation revealed a total of five indecent images, with one classified as Category A, indicating the most serious level of child exploitation material. The charges of voyeurism involved two separate incidents: one where Dixon had hidden a camera in a bathroom to film a woman on the toilet, and another where he recorded footage underneath a schoolgirl’s skirt. During a police interview on January 9, Dixon responded with a simple 'no comment' when asked about the voyeuristic acts.
Defense lawyer Jennifer Josephs highlighted that the total number of indecent images was relatively low compared to other cases, which often involve hundreds or thousands of such images. She emphasized that Dixon was considered a low risk of reoffending, stating, “He has been identified as being at a low risk of reoffending. He’s in a lower risk group than around 83 per cent of sexual offenders.” She also noted that Dixon was living with his unwell mother, for whom he was a carer, and argued that remanding him in custody would cause significant hardship for her. Additionally, she mentioned that Dixon was employed as a window cleaner.
Judge Nicolas Cartwright, presiding over the case, delivered a stern warning about the gravity of Dixon’s actions. He stated, “It might be that when you created these images you simply thought this was an image. The reality is that behind the image there’s a real child somewhere in the world being abused. You have children. This is someone’s child who was raped for the sexual gratification of the people who want these images. It is the demand for these images which drives the supply.”
In sentencing, Judge Cartwright imposed a two-year community order on Dixon. This included 30 days of rehabilitation activities and 70 hours of unpaid work. Furthermore, Dixon is required to register as a sex offender for five years and pay court costs amounting to £375. A sexual harm prevention order was also issued, restricting him from having contact with children under 16 unless it is part of daily life. He is prohibited from using devices capable of internet access unless the device displays his search history, which must be made available to police upon request. The order also bans him from installing anti-forensic software or deleting his internet search history.
Additionally, Dixon is mandated to participate in a 'maps for change' program, aimed at reducing reoffending behavior. The court ordered that all devices containing the illegal images be destroyed. This case underscores the ongoing efforts of law enforcement to combat child exploitation and protect vulnerable victims from further harm.