TERANCE MURTON'S SHOCKING SEX OFFENDER BAN IN BURY ST EDMUNDS AND THETFORD

In a significant legal development this week, a convicted sex offender residing in Bury St Edmunds has been subjected to a court-imposed restriction that severely limits his ability to have any unsupervised contact with children. The court's decision comes amid ongoing concerns about his past conduct and recent observations suggesting potential risks.

Terance Murton, aged 68, whose address is listed as Northgate Street in Bury St Edmunds, has a criminal history dating back several decades. In October 1982, he was convicted on multiple counts related to sexual offenses. Specifically, he was found guilty of four counts of gross indecency with a child and five counts of indecent assault involving a male aged 16 or over. At the time of his conviction, Murton was residing in Thetford, and he received a sentence of two years’ imprisonment for his crimes.

Fast forward to this week, Murton appeared before Bury St Edmunds Magistrates’ Court once again, where he was formally issued with a sexual offences prevention order. This legal measure is designed to restrict his interactions with minors and mitigate any potential risk of reoffending. The order explicitly prohibits Murton from having any form of ‘unsupervised contact’ with children under the age of 16, unless such contact is deemed ‘inadvertent’ and unavoidable during daily activities. Even then, such contact requires the explicit consent of the child's parent or guardian, who must be aware of Murton’s criminal history and approve of the interaction with the ‘express approval’ of Social Care Services.

Furthermore, the order bans Murton from being present in any location where children under 16 are present unless he is under the supervision of an adult who is aware of his convictions and has been approved by the Children and Young People’s Services (CYPS). It also restricts him from entering premises that are used solely for the education, play, or recreation of children, aiming to prevent any opportunity for inappropriate contact.

During the court proceedings, Karly Mcquire, representing the chief constable of Suffolk Police, provided the court with intelligence reports indicating ongoing concerns. She revealed that there had been ‘regular intelligence’ suggesting that young males had visited Murton’s residence since his initial convictions. Specific incidents included a Crimestoppers tip-off in June 2002 raising concerns about Murton’s behavior, and a recent sighting in April of this year where he was seen walking towards his garage while holding the hand of a child.

Murton, who has previously worked as a handyman and vehicle repairer, denied that his past activities were aimed at recruiting or grooming young boys. He claimed that he had helped care for a friend’s child while she was at work, sometimes taking the child to school, assisting with potty training, and settling him down during night tremors when he stayed overnight. Murton insisted that his actions were innocent and not motivated by any sexual intent, stating, “Whatever the nature of that relationship, given his previous convictions, it wasn’t suitable behaviour.”

He also explained that the child's mother was ‘understandably upset’ when she learned of his convictions and had since moved away. Murton admitted that he had not disclosed his criminal history to her earlier, reasoning that he did not think it was relevant at the time. He expressed a desire to rebuild trust, saying, “I’ve got to be trusted now, I want to be trusted to prove myself,” and added that he did not want to live under constant suspicion or fear.

Representing Murton, solicitor Nick Wray, argued that his client’s convictions were over three decades old and that there was little evidence—mainly hearsay—to suggest he posed an ongoing threat. Despite these arguments, the magistrate, Jim Spencer, emphasized the seriousness of the case. He pointed out that Murton had shown no remorse or empathy for his victims and appeared to be primarily concerned with his own interests.

In conclusion, Magistrate Spencer stated that the order was necessary to protect the public from serious sexual harm. The decision underscores the ongoing concern about Murton’s potential risk to children and the importance of preventative measures to ensure community safety in Bury St Edmunds and Thetford.