TIMOTHY HILL FROM PADDOCK WOOD SENTENCED FOR CHILD ABUSE IN MAIDSTONE
| Red Rose Database
Paddock Wood Sexual Abuser
In a case that has shocked the local community of Paddock Wood, Timothy Hill, aged 28, has been sentenced to an indefinite period of imprisonment following his conviction for multiple serious sexual offences involving children. Hill, who resides on Tutsham Way in Paddock Wood, was found guilty of raping a young victim, committing four separate sexual assaults, and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. The court heard that Hill’s actions were driven by a disturbing combination of boredom and a lack of understanding of appropriate sexual boundaries.
During the sentencing at Maidstone Crown Court, Judge Jeremy Gold QC emphasized the severity of Hill’s offences and the risks he poses to the public. The judge described Hill’s behaviour as a “stark example” of his inability to comprehend the boundaries that separate acceptable from unacceptable conduct in sexual matters. Due to the nature of the crimes and Hill’s apparent difficulty in understanding the gravity of his actions, the judge decided that an indefinite sentence for public protection was necessary. Hill will be required to serve a minimum of four years before he can be considered for parole, but the indefinite nature of his detention reflects the court’s concern about his potential to cause further harm.
Judge Gold explained that imposing a fixed-term or extended sentence would not adequately protect the community, as there remains uncertainty about Hill’s response to treatment or rehabilitation efforts. “It is not in the public interest for a young man of these sexual tendencies to be released into the community until there is a certain degree of confidence,” he stated. The court also noted that Hill had admitted to the offences, which included asking one of his victims if they wanted to have “willy fun” before placing the child’s hand in his groin area. In another instance, Hill warned a child not to tell anyone about what he had done, threatening that he would go to prison if he did.
Initially, Hill denied any wrongdoing, claiming that the children had lied. However, he later confessed to police that he had “done wrong,” expressing remorse by stating, “I wish I never did it.” The court was informed that Hill’s motivation for committing these offences was linked to his boredom after losing his job, which he disclosed in a probation report.
Hill’s defence lawyer, Jacqueline Carey, highlighted her client’s remorse, stating that Hill was “deeply remorseful” and that he was anxious for her to publicly apologise on his behalf. The court also took into account that Hill had already served 150 days on remand, during which he was reportedly subjected to bullying by other inmates despite being housed on the vulnerable persons wing.
In addition to his prison sentence, Hill was subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, which prohibits him from having unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 16. Upon his release, he is required to register as a sex offender and is disqualified from working with children in any capacity. These measures aim to mitigate the risk Hill poses and to protect potential future victims from harm.
During the sentencing at Maidstone Crown Court, Judge Jeremy Gold QC emphasized the severity of Hill’s offences and the risks he poses to the public. The judge described Hill’s behaviour as a “stark example” of his inability to comprehend the boundaries that separate acceptable from unacceptable conduct in sexual matters. Due to the nature of the crimes and Hill’s apparent difficulty in understanding the gravity of his actions, the judge decided that an indefinite sentence for public protection was necessary. Hill will be required to serve a minimum of four years before he can be considered for parole, but the indefinite nature of his detention reflects the court’s concern about his potential to cause further harm.
Judge Gold explained that imposing a fixed-term or extended sentence would not adequately protect the community, as there remains uncertainty about Hill’s response to treatment or rehabilitation efforts. “It is not in the public interest for a young man of these sexual tendencies to be released into the community until there is a certain degree of confidence,” he stated. The court also noted that Hill had admitted to the offences, which included asking one of his victims if they wanted to have “willy fun” before placing the child’s hand in his groin area. In another instance, Hill warned a child not to tell anyone about what he had done, threatening that he would go to prison if he did.
Initially, Hill denied any wrongdoing, claiming that the children had lied. However, he later confessed to police that he had “done wrong,” expressing remorse by stating, “I wish I never did it.” The court was informed that Hill’s motivation for committing these offences was linked to his boredom after losing his job, which he disclosed in a probation report.
Hill’s defence lawyer, Jacqueline Carey, highlighted her client’s remorse, stating that Hill was “deeply remorseful” and that he was anxious for her to publicly apologise on his behalf. The court also took into account that Hill had already served 150 days on remand, during which he was reportedly subjected to bullying by other inmates despite being housed on the vulnerable persons wing.
In addition to his prison sentence, Hill was subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, which prohibits him from having unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 16. Upon his release, he is required to register as a sex offender and is disqualified from working with children in any capacity. These measures aim to mitigate the risk Hill poses and to protect potential future victims from harm.