A man who intended to meet a child for sexual purposes received a three-year prison sentence when his plan turned out to be a police operation. Matthew Hickman, 29, thought he was communicating with a 14-year-old girl named ‘Jess’ and traveled to Norfolk with the intention of engaging in sexual activities with her, as revealed in court at Old Bailey. Hickman, residing in Lewisham, southeast London, falsely claimed to be 19 years old and mentioned purchasing lingerie from Primark for the teenager.
During the sentencing, Judge Mr. Recorder David Jeremy KC mentioned that an undercover police officer, posing as a 14-year-old girl named ‘Jess’ in Norfolk, initiated the case. The officer set up several social media accounts with a profile picture of ‘Jess’ in a school uniform.
Hickman messaged ‘the girl’, who expressed interest in having fun, leading to Hickman sending explicit images and messages to the undercover officer. He persisted in communicating with the ‘young girl’ through multiple accounts, sending inappropriate messages.
In court, Hickman was described as contacting ‘Jess’ from a different account, inquiring about certain sexual activities while being aware of her age and falsely claiming to be 19. The judge highlighted Hickman’s actions, where a 29-year-old man believed he was conversing with a 14-year-old and arranging a sexual encounter.
Hickman was apprehended on December 5, 2024, following a search of his devices that revealed indecent images of children, including 15 images categorized as the most severe (Category A).
The judge emphasized that Hickman denied any sexual interest in children during interviews, which was proven false based on the evidence found on his devices. Hickman’s lack of acknowledgment of his offenses led the judge to hope that he would seek help during his time in custody.
Hickman pleaded guilty to charges of arranging sexual activity and making indecent images, resulting in a 36-month prison sentence. Additionally, he received an indefinite sexual harm prevention order, a victim surcharge of £228, and was ordered to pay additional costs.