PETER HATCHETT FROM GREAT TOTHAM AND IPSWICH SENTENCED FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND SEXUAL OFFENCES

In a case that has sent shockwaves through the communities of Great Totham and Ipswich, Peter Hatchett, a man with a troubling history of sexual offences, has been subjected to an indefinite detention order after a series of disturbing discoveries linked to child exploitation.

Hatchett, aged 30 and residing in Ipswich, was previously convicted in 2002 for serious sexual crimes involving a girl under the age of 14, including indecent assault and the taking of indecent photographs of children. His initial sentence was five and a half years, but his criminal activities did not end there. After his release from prison in December 2004, authorities remained vigilant, especially after concerns arose regarding his associations with other known sex offenders.

In November of the previous year, police executed a search at Hatchett’s residence on Firmin Close in Ipswich. The investigation was prompted by suspicions that he was maintaining contact with individuals involved in similar criminal behaviour. During the search, law enforcement officials uncovered a disturbing collection of digital material on Hatchett’s computer equipment. The files included over 500 images classified as child pornography, with varying degrees of severity. Specifically, 397 images were categorized at the lowest level, with 39 at level two, 28 at level three, 32 at level four, and a small but significant number—four images—at the highest level of severity, level five.

Prosecutor David Wilson explained that Hatchett, who was on licence from his earlier sentence, was fully cooperative during police interviews. He admitted to downloading and possessing child pornography, acknowledging that he was struggling to control his urges. Wilson stated, “He said he could no longer control his desires,” highlighting the severity of his admitted offences.

Following these revelations, Hatchett was charged with 16 counts related to the downloading of child pornography and one count of possession. The court heard that he had been candid with authorities, which contributed to the decision to impose a stringent sentence. Judge Peter De Mille, recognizing the ongoing danger posed by Hatchett, declared that he represented a significant risk to children and therefore sentenced him to an indeterminate term for public protection. The judge emphasized that Hatchett would be required to serve a minimum of two years before he could be considered for parole.

In addition to the custodial sentence, the court issued a sexual offences prevention order to restrict Hatchett’s activities and protect potential victims. This order prohibited him from working with children and mandated that he register as a sex offender by signing onto the Sex Offenders’ Register.

During the proceedings, it was also revealed that Hatchett’s father had served as the vicar of Great Totham in Essex. His family’s background was discussed, with mitigation lawyer Jude Durr explaining that the family’s move from Essex to Suffolk in 2002 was unrelated to Hatchett’s criminal behaviour. Durr described the community in Essex as supportive and kind, and noted that Hatchett’s parents continued to offer him love and support despite the shame and distress caused by his actions.

Currently, Hatchett’s father is serving as the vicar at St Andrew’s Church in Melton, near Woodbridge. The court heard that Hatchett himself acknowledged the need for help regarding his compulsions, especially those related to child pornography on the internet. Despite participating in treatment programs aimed at addressing his offending behaviour, he admitted that he had been unable to resist temptation.

In a related case from March 2002, Hatchett, then 23 and living in Great Totham, had pleaded guilty to multiple charges of indecent assault and taking indecent photographs of young girls, some as young as three. Over a period of five years, he assaulted six girls aged between three and 12, and recorded these assaults on his personal computer. The court was informed that concerned parents had contacted police after reading about his previous admission of possessing indecent images of children in November of the previous year. Hatchett was also fined for disorderly conduct following an incident in Maldon’s Promenade Park, where he was involved in a scuffle with parents.

Prosecutor Gerald Isted requested that Hatchett be remanded in custody for his own safety, citing heightened community tensions and the risk of vigilantism. Defense lawyer Paul Mason noted that there had been no further issues since the offences came to light and that Hatchett had withdrawn from all church and youth activities to avoid contact with children. The magistrates agreed and remanded him in custody, with sentencing scheduled at Chelmsford Crown Court.