Crime

Man denies causing baby’s injuries as police interviews read to jury

Published

6 days ago

November 28, 2025

THE JURY at Swansea Crown Court has heard police interviews with a man accused of physically and sexually assaulting a baby who was taken to Glangwili Hospital in the early hours of January 24, 2021.

Christopher Phillips, aged 34, of Kiln Park, Burton, denies two offences of sexual assault by penetration, one count of assault causing actual bodily harm, and four counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

The baby’s mother – who cannot be named to protect the child’s identity – denies child cruelty and allowing the child to suffer serious physical harm.

Interviews read to the court

Prosecutor Joshua Scouller read to the jury the transcript of Phillips’ initial interview with Dyfed-Powys Police.

Officers asked: “Are you responsible for causing these injuries?”

“I’m not, no,” Phillips replied.

He added: “When I’m there, she’s always with me… ninety-five per cent of the time she’s in the room.”

Phillips suggested the baby had been “crying more” because of an ear problem during the week before hospital admission. He said the child also had a “nappy rash” and blood in the nappy, but he did not notice anything else that concerned him.

The defendant was asked about a message the mother had sent him asking whether he had bumped the child’s head. A later CT scan found a fractured skull and a bleed on the brain.

Phillips said he had walked into a table while carrying the baby and struck his own leg.

Officers pressed him on why the mother had asked about the baby’s head: “I don’t know if she was spotting anything,” he said, adding the message had been sent days before the hospital visit.

Mother’s police interview

In a separate police interview, the baby’s mother – whose identity is protected – alleged that she had once walked into a room and seen Phillips “bouncing the baby up and down on his penis” after stepping out of the shower.

When asked what he had been wearing, she replied: “He was naked.”

Officers asked: “What did he do when he saw you?”

“I gave him a look and he just pulled the baby up higher,” she said.

She further alleged that Phillips had inserted the baby’s rattle into his anus, describing it as being used like “a butt plug”. Asked what she thought of this, she said: “Disgusted.” She told officers she took the rattle away and put it in the kitchen, adding that she had intended to wash it but did not, and later saw it fall behind the fridge.

“I didn’t want the baby touching it again,” she said.

When questioned about how long she had known Phillips before they began a sexual relationship, she said: “Two or three weeks,” explaining that they had met on Tinder.

Asked why she had used a profile picture of herself and the baby together on the dating app, she said: “People have got to know if you have kids.”

Officers asked whether the relationship had been “highly controlling and sexual”, and she replied: “Yes.”

When asked if Phillips had ever shown any interest in helping to care for the baby, she replied: “No.”

She went on to say she had become concerned after seeing Phillips with Sudocrem on his finger, “as if he had put his finger in a pot of it”.

“It was like a ring of Sudocrem around his finger, all the way down his finger near the first knuckle,” she said.

The court heard that there were no pots of Sudocrem in the house – only tubes.

Officers asked: “When you realised that the defendant may have put his finger into your baby’s bottom, how did you feel?”

“I was disgusted,” she said.

Expert evidence

Consultant paediatrician Dr Louise Newbury, an experienced specialist in child sexual abuse cases, was asked to review the medical findings for Dyfed-Powys Police.

She told the court it was most likely the baby’s anal injuries were caused by “penetrative blunt force trauma”.

Dr Newbury said the baby appeared to have two clusters of injuries: one likely between January 12 and 17, and another between January 23 and 24.

She told the jury the child was “in extreme distress” when examined at hospital, presenting as “a very different baby” to footage filmed on January 23.

Adjournment

Before the jury was discharged for the weekend, the court heard that there would be more interviews being read out on Monday, as well as some admin to do to the jury bundles which would greatly assist the court.

The trial continues.

Crime

Pembroke rape investigation dropped – one suspect now facing deportation

Published

19 hours ago

December 3, 2025

Tom Sinclair

DYFED-POWYS POLICE have closed an investigation into an alleged rape and false imprisonment in Pembroke after deciding to take no further action. One of the two men originally arrested is now in immigration detention and faces deportation.

The incident took place on Main Street over the weekend of 8–9 November 2025. Police were called at 9:45am on Sunday 9 November after reports of a woman in distress. She was taken to hospital for treatment.

Two men – aged 36 and 27 – were arrested at the scene on suspicion of rape and false imprisonment. They were subsequently released on bail while enquiries continued.

On Tuesday (2 December 2025), the force announced the criminal investigation has concluded and no charges will be brought. A police spokesperson said the decision took full account of the victim’s wishes.

Outcome for the two suspects:

The 36-year-old man has been transferred to the custody of the Home Office Immigration Enforcement team and is now detained pending deportation.
The 27-year-old man has been released with no further police action.

A Dyfed-Powys Police statement read: “This investigation was not terrorism-related, and we have no knowledge of any linked incident in Monkton. All rumours suggesting otherwise are incorrect.”

The force has also dismissed separate community speculation that the men entered the UK illegally on fraudulent passports or were due in court this week on terrorism charges.

Detectives stressed that every report of rape or serious sexual assault is treated seriously and victims are supported throughout. Anyone affected has been directed to specialist services, details of which are available on the force website.

No further police updates are expected.

Crime

Defendant denies using Sudocrem-covered finger to assault two-month-old baby

Published

2 days ago

December 2, 2025

Tom Sinclair

In dramatic day-long cross-examination, Christopher Phillips repeatedly denies sexual penetration, as prosecution alleges escalating anal attacks ended in catastrophic injury

CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS, 28, spent almost six hours in the witness box today. During the entire afternoon he underwent a sustained and highly graphic cross-examination by prosecuting counsel Caroline Rees KC.

The defendant is accused of cruelty and multiple sexual assaults on his then-girlfriend’s two-month-old son between December 2020 and January 2021, culminating in life-threatening anal injuries discovered when the child was rushed to hospital on 24 January 2021. The baby’s mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is jointly charged with causing or allowing serious physical harm.

Both defendants plead not guilty.

Ms Rees KC opened the day by telling Phillips that the prosecution case was that he had developed a sexual interest in penetrating the baby anally and had used his finger, coated with Sudocrem, to do so on a number of occasions before finally causing the “catastrophic” tearing injury seen in the medical photographs.

***Artist’s impression of Christopher Phillips giving evidence at Swansea Crown Court***

Sudocrem and the mechanics of nappy changing

The prosecutor took Phillips step-by-step through his own description of how he applied Sudocrem: Ms Rees: “You would put a blob of Sudocrem on one finger, then use another finger to smear it around the nappy area?” Phillips: “Yes.” Ms Rees: “So your finger was covered in Sudocrem?” Phillips: “Yes.” Ms Rees: “And you accept you sometimes changed the baby completely alone?” Phillips: “Yes, occasionally.” Ms Rees: “You are extremely experienced with anal sex. You know that the first thing you do is use a lubricated finger to relax and open the sphincter before anything larger is introduced?” Phillips: “With consenting adults, yes.” Ms Rees: “Precisely. And that is exactly what you did to this baby with your Sudocrem-covered finger on more than one occasion, wasn’t it?” Phillips: “No. Never. Absolutely not.”

The alleged progression of assaults

Ms Rees put it to Phillips that the bright red blood he first noticed in the nappy around 12 January 2021, the further bleeding he photographed and sent to the mother on the night of 23 January, and the eventual massive tear and prolapse discovered hours later formed a clear escalation. “You were testing the water,” Ms Rees said. “First a little bleeding, then a bit more, and finally you went too far and caused the terrible injury the jury have seen.” Phillips repeatedly insisted the blood was caused by constipation and a haemorrhoid he had personally identified.

The baby’s rattle

Returning to the incident in which Phillips pressed the baby’s rattle against his own anus as a joke, Ms Rees said: “You have a highly trained eye for objects that can be used anally, don’t you, Mr Phillips? Within a split second you saw that rattle and thought ‘sex toy’.” Phillips replied: “It was a stupid, throw-away moment of jocularity. I didn’t insert it.”

Deletion of material from his phone

Within 48–72 hours of the baby being admitted to hospital in a life-threatening condition, Phillips wiped large quantities of sexual photographs, videos and internet search history from his device. Ms Rees: “You realised the game was up and you frantically deleted anything that showed your sexual interests, didn’t you?” Phillips: “I deleted adult material involving [the mother] because I was embarrassed. There was never anything involving the baby to delete.”

The final night – 23/24 January 2021

Cell-site records show Phillips arrived at the flat around 18:30 and did not leave until 02:57. He accepts he changed the baby’s nappy three times that night, including once around 22:17 when he photographed fresh blood and sent it to the mother who was in the next room. Ms Rees put it to him that shortly before he left he carried out the most serious assault, causing the full-thickness tear and prolapse, then “calmly walked out knowing the child was catastrophically injured”. Phillips answered: “When I left he was quiet and settled in [the mother’s] arms.”

Closing accusation

At the end of the afternoon, Caroline Rees KC rose and addressed the defendant directly: “Mr Phillips, over a period of weeks you sexually assaulted this two-month-old baby with your finger on multiple occasions. On the final night you penetrated [Baby C] so violently that you caused the devastating injuries shown in the photographs the jury have seen. That is the truth, isn’t it?” Phillips turned to face the jury and replied firmly and clearly: “No. I did not. I have never touched that baby sexually or harmed [the baby] in any way whatsoever.”

Caroline Rees KC indicated she still has further questions. Cross-examination will resume tomorrow morning before His Honour Judge Paul Thomas KC.

Crime

Probation claims ‘not fair’, says solicitor as defendant jailed for hammer offence

Published

2 days ago

December 2, 2025

Sarah Jane Absalom

Defence challenges report accusing Milford man of refusing to comply with community order

CLAIMS by the probation service that a defendant had refused to comply with community order requirements were strongly refuted by a defence solicitor when the case came before Haverfordwest magistrates this week.

Representing Josh Skipper, solicitor Tom Lloyd criticised what he described as a catalogue of inaccuracies in a probation report that recommended an immediate custodial sentence.

The report alleged that Skipper had:

REFUSED to comply with his community order;
was UNMOTIVATED to seek employment;
had no ACTIVE SKILLS or activity preferences; and
was not EASY to engage with.

But Mr Lloyd told the court these assertions were “simply not fair”.

“The report isn’t helpful in setting out the defendant’s background,” he said. “It’s just not fair.”

He told magistrates that Skipper had made repeated attempts to secure work in recent weeks, but had been unsuccessful. He added that the report criticised Skipper for having no skills or activities but offered no constructive recommendations such as unpaid work.

“It says he isn’t an easy person to engage with, but this is someone who was brought up in care from the age of 13 or 14,” Mr Lloyd said.

Skipper, 24, of Chestnut Way, Milford Haven, was before the court for sentence after pleading guilty to possessing an offensive weapon — a hammer — in a public place, namely Victoria Road, Milford Haven, on November 9.

Mr Lloyd accepted the offence crossed the custody threshold but urged magistrates to impose a suspended sentence.

“He understands it isn’t up to him to pick and choose what requirements they want of him,” he said. “But rather than be given a custodial sentence, his sentence should be suspended.”

Magistrates rejected the request, citing Skipper’s repeated offending and his lack of compliance with previous community orders.

Skipper was sentenced to 26 weeks in custody and ordered to pay a £154 surcharge and £85 costs. A forfeiture and destruction order was made for the hammer.