Child Protection Breach Lands Porthcawl Milkman in Prison for 14 Months

In a disturbing case highlighting the challenges of monitoring sex offenders, a Porthcawl milkman has been imprisoned after violating court orders meant to protect children. Stephen Ricketts, 54, was recently sentenced to 14 months in prison after breaching the terms of a suspended sentence he received for attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child.
The original offense occurred when Ricketts exchanged explicit online messages with what he believed was a 13-year-old girl, but was actually a decoy account operated by a vigilante group targeting potential predators. During these exchanges, he sent an explicit image of himself and requested inappropriate photos in return.
In June 2023, Ricketts had narrowly avoided immediate imprisonment, receiving an eight-month sentence suspended for two years. However, his freedom proved short-lived as police soon discovered multiple violations of his court-ordered restrictions.
According to prosecutor Abigail Jackson, when police visited Ricketts’ home in January, they discovered he was using an unregistered mobile phone. “No internet history was available,” Jackson told the court. “He denied deleting his history but said he had been carrying out internet searches using a voice control feature which did not record history.”5
Just a week later, authorities uncovered yet another undisclosed phone. When questioned about his failure to register the device, Ricketts claimed he hadn’t contacted authorities because he had been “feeling down.” The court also heard evidence that he had been a month late in registering other mandatory details with police.
Defense barrister Rose Gladwell attempted to characterize these breaches as stemming from “poor organisation and emotional instability” rather than deliberate criminal intent. She noted that her client understood the restrictions were “not a matter of discretion nor convenience.” Gladwell explained that one new phone was purchased after Ricketts “temporarily lost possession” of his previous device during a car accident.
The defense painted a picture of a troubled man, with Gladwell telling the court: “His life has been marked by trauma which he has only recently begun to acknowledge. He works unsociable hours and it is not a glamorous job but he has held it down despite the isolation it brings him. He is vulnerable and socially isolated but he is willing to do the work to overcome his issues.”5
Gladwell urged the judge to consider another suspended sentence, citing Ricketts’ consistent attendance at probation appointments since his previous sentencing. She also argued that imprisonment would negatively impact his children, stating: “Although estranged from his children, they still rely on him for financial support.”5
Judge Richard Kember acknowledged mitigating factors in his sentencing remarks: “I take into account that you had lost your temporary accommodation and had become homeless. You had lost contact with your family and had medical issues including arthritis, anxiety and depression.”5
However, the judge expressed serious concerns about Ricketts’ behavior, noting that he had been assessed as posing a high risk of harm to children and had demonstrated a pattern of attempting to “deceive professionals.” Judge Kember determined that allowing Ricketts to remain free would create an unacceptable risk of continued violations of court orders.
The final sentence activated four months of Ricketts’ previously suspended sentence and added an additional 10 months, resulting in a total prison term of 14 months.
This case highlights the challenges in monitoring sex offenders in the community and the serious consequences of violating court-ordered restrictions designed to protect vulnerable individuals. It also demonstrates how paedophile-hunting groups continue to play a controversial role in identifying potential offenders, though experts remain divided on the effectiveness and ethics of such vigilante tactics.