REGINALD BREEZE FROM CROMER ESCAPES WORK BAN DESPITE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSES

In February 2006, a significant controversy arose in Norwich Crown Court surrounding the sentencing of Reginald Breeze, a 55-year-old man from Cromer, who was convicted of possessing a substantial collection of indecent images and videos involving minors. Breeze admitted to having in his possession a total of 41 indecent images and 11 videos depicting young children, a crime that has serious implications for public safety and child protection.

Following his admission, Breeze was placed on the sex offenders' register and was subject to a supervision order, which mandated his participation in a sex offenders' treatment program. However, the court did not impose a specific ban preventing him from working with children, a decision that drew sharp criticism from child protection advocates and the wider community. The presiding judge, Paul Downes, explained that he believed such a ban was unnecessary in Breeze’s case, asserting that Breeze was a known loner and that his placement on the register was sufficient to restrict his contact with children.

Judge Downes stated, “It would have been a waste of time to add another order and it was in my view unlikely that he would ever work with children anyway.” This reasoning was met with disapproval from child welfare organizations, notably John Carr of the charity NCH, who expressed concern over the court’s decision. Carr emphasized that the absence of a ban sends a troubling message, especially considering recent policy shifts announced by Education Secretary Ruth Kelly, which advocate for stricter controls on offenders working with minors.

John Carr criticized the court’s approach, saying, “The judge’s comments undermine public confidence in the judicial system.” He pointed out that numerous studies have shown a high correlation between individuals who collect and download child pornography and those who later commit direct offenses against children. Carr highlighted that the risk of reoffending is significant, with some studies indicating that between 20% and 70% of such offenders may go on to commit hands-on crimes.

Judge Downes further explained that Breeze would be required to attend a sex offenders’ treatment program, and if he breaches this condition, he could face imprisonment. Despite this, critics argue that the decision not to impose a working ban diminishes the perceived severity of Breeze’s crimes and potentially endangers children by not explicitly restricting his employment opportunities involving minors. The case continues to spark debate over the adequacy of judicial measures in protecting vulnerable children from known offenders.