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.

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.

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.

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.