Crime
Mother admits “terrible idea” to let new partner change her baby’s nappies alone
Court hears from timid mother who was barely audible in the witness box who said she carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child
A MOTHER who cannot be named for legal reasons gave evidence yesterday in the trial of Christopher Phillips, the man accused of physically and sexually assaulting her infant son – referred to as Baby C – and causing him life-changing injuries in January 2021.
Phillips, 37 at the time, had been in a relationship with the mother for only a few weeks when Baby C, then around 10 weeks old, suffered catastrophic anal injuries at a flat in Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire. The child was rushed to Glangwili Hospital in the early hours of January 24 and survived, but the harm was permanent. Phillips denies 11 counts of sexual penetration of a child under 13, four counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, all between December 20, 2020, and January 25, 2021. The mother denies two charges of causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm and two charges of child cruelty by neglect.
The prosecution alleges that Phillips deliberately inflicted the injuries while alone with the baby during nappy changes, using a finger coated in Sudocrem as lubricant on multiple occasions, leading to escalating harm including blood in the nappies and ultimately a massive tear and prolapse. A central part of their case is that the mother repeatedly allowed Phillips unsupervised access to her son – including taking him into another room to change his nappy and shut the door – despite knowing very little about him and despite behaviour that should have raised alarm, such as his insistence on privacy and her own unease.
Late on Thursday morning (Dec 4), under lengthy and forceful cross-examination by Caroline Rees KC, prosecuting, the mother appeared composed but spoke so quietly and timidly that people in court struggled to hear her answers. She conceded point after point:
- She carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child.
- She allowed him to be alone with Baby C from the very start of January 2021 (possibly even before 2 January).
- She ignored her own concerns and permitted Phillips to shut the door while changing the baby’s nappy, telling her not to enter or accusing her of “micromanaging”.
- She accepted that this had exposed her son to “a massive risk” and had been “a terrible idea”.
The mother explained that Phillips had said he wanted to learn nappy-changing because he “never got the chance” with his own child. She initially stayed in the room but soon permitted him to take Baby C into a separate room alone. She also recounted noticing odd details during changes, such as Phillips having Sudocrem around his finger “as if it had come from a pot” – despite her not owning a pot of the cream – and him leaving the room without putting the baby’s babygro back on after fastening the nappy, which immediately struck her as wrong. A few days earlier, she had discovered extensive bruising to the baby’s bottom, a swollen testicle and blood in his nappy, prompting her to confide in family and seek medical advice, though Phillips became angry when she mentioned the appointments.
Key moments from the cross-examination
Caroline Rees KC: “You took no steps whatsoever to keep Baby C safe, did you?” Mother (barely audible): “No.”
Caroline Rees KC: “You did absolutely nothing to keep him safe, did you?” Mother: “No.”
When His Honour Judge Paul Thomas KC asked her to clarify for the jury why she let Phillips change the baby alone, she confirmed:
“I wasn’t allowed in the room. If I tried to go in he would accuse me of micromanaging.”
She said this made her feel “annoyed”, but she “ignored it”.
Caroline Rees KC put it directly to the mother:
- “The signs were all there, weren’t they?”
- “It was a terrible idea, wasn’t it?”
- “You could have stopped it at any time – by doing the changes yourself or by ending the relationship.”
- “This man wanted to have your baby on his own more than is normal.”
The mother eventually accepted each proposition, agreeing that:
- Allowing Phillips to change the baby alone had been “a terrible idea”;
- The warning signs that she should have stopped it were present;
- Phillips’ desire to be alone with her son was greater than normal.
She admitted she had been “keen to have company” and had tolerated behaviour she should never have accepted.
Legal matters will be dealt with tomorrow morning only. Closing speeches are expected to continue into Monday.
The trial continues.
Crime
Police issue counterfeit £20 warning ahead of Royal Welsh Show
Businesses and members of the public across the Dyfed-Powys area are being urged to check banknotes carefully after fake currency was reported in Builth Wells
DYFED-POWYS POLICE has issued a warning after receiving an increased number of reports of counterfeit £20 notes being circulated in the Builth Wells area.
Although the reports have so far centred on the town, the warning is relevant to businesses and residents across the force area, particularly with thousands of visitors expected to travel to Powys for the Royal Welsh Show.
Police are urging shopkeepers, hospitality businesses, market traders, taxi drivers and members of the public to examine any £20 notes they receive.
A genuine Bank of England polymer £20 note contains several security features. When the note is tilted from side to side, the word “twenty” inside the oval hologram should change to “pounds”.
The holographic section should also appear multicoloured when moved. Genuine polymer notes have a smooth, slightly glossy texture, with raised printing on areas including the words “Bank of England”.
Signs that a note could be counterfeit include the word “twenty” failing to change when the note is tilted, the holographic section remaining silver and the note having an unusual texture or thickness.

On some fake notes, the holographic patch may also appear out of alignment because it has been glued into place.
Police are also warning people to look out for so-called “prop notes”, which may have the words “prop” or “copy” printed on them.
In some cases, these words are covered with a foil sticker intended to resemble the security hologram on a genuine banknote. Police said these notes are still considered counterfeit under UK law, even when the wording remains visible.
Anyone who suspects they have received a counterfeit note should avoid attempting to spend it and should report the matter to police.
Possessing or knowingly using counterfeit currency is a serious criminal offence which can carry a prison sentence of up to ten years and an unlimited fine.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Dyfed-Powys Police online, email [email protected] or call 101.
People who are deaf, hard of hearing or speech impaired can text the non-emergency number on 07811 311 908.
Information can also be provided anonymously to Crimestoppers by calling 0800 555 111.
Crime
Convicted sex offender found with push dagger at Milford Haven home
Uwen Watts was jailed last year after exposing himself to a vulnerable woman and sending her offensive sexual messages
A REGISTERED sex offender who was jailed last year for exposing himself to a vulnerable woman has returned to court after police found a push dagger at his Milford Haven home.
Uwen Watts, aged 20, was sentenced to 29 weeks in prison in December after sending the woman links to pornographic material before exposing his genitals to her.
He was also made subject to notification requirements under the Sex Offenders Register for ten years.
Watts has now appeared before Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court after officers discovered the push dagger at his home in Coombs Drive.
Police attended the property on May 15 while monitoring Watts in connection with an unrelated matter.
After entering the address, officers found the push dagger, which is legally classed as an offensive weapon.
Watts pleaded guilty to possessing an offensive weapon in a private place and was represented by solicitor Tom Lloyd.
“The item was found in a private place and he didn’t use it or threaten anyone with it,” Mr Lloyd told the court.
“It wasn’t hidden and he made full admissions to the officers.”
Magistrates fined Watts £40 and ordered him to pay £85 in prosecution costs and a £16 surcharge.
A destruction order was also imposed for the push dagger.

Crime
Threatened to smash up parents’ home after demand for alcohol refused
Christopher Sizer’s mother told magistrates the family could no longer cope with his behaviour and repeated demands for money
A MILFORD HAVEN man has been sentenced after threatening to damage his parents’ home with a hammer when they refused his demands for pizza and alcohol.
Christopher Sizer made the threats on March 3 while at his parents’ property with a group of friends.
Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court heard that the 38-year-old had repeatedly asked his parents for money, causing increasing tension within the family.
“He came downstairs asking for pizza and drink, but was told there was already food in the house because they could not stretch to buying more,” Crown Prosecutor Sian Vaughan said.
Sizer then referred to a hammer he knew was kept inside the property.
“He told his parents he would use the hammer to damage the windows and that he would also kick the doors in,” Ms Vaughan told the court.
In a victim impact statement, Sizer’s mother, Kay Sizer, said she and her husband were no longer able to manage their son’s behaviour.
“If we don’t give him what he wants, he threatens to kill himself,” she said.
“If we have a night away, he phones the hotel and constantly asks us for money. My husband has had to get another job just to bring in additional money.
“We can’t cope with this behaviour any more, nor with the threats he makes against the house.”
Sizer, of Prescelly Place, Milford Haven, pleaded guilty to threatening to destroy or damage property.
Defending, Tom Lloyd said Sizer had paranoid schizophrenia and had lost his temper on the night of the offence.
“He said certain things which he regrets,” Mr Lloyd said.
“The defendant needs help and is willing to engage with the probation service to get it.”
Sizer was sentenced to a 12-month community order, including a 12-month alcohol treatment requirement and ten rehabilitation activity requirement days.
A two-year restraining order was also imposed, preventing him from contacting either of his parents directly or indirectly.
The order prohibits him from visiting any property occupied by his parents and from posting anything online or on social media that refers directly to them.
Sizer was fined £100 and ordered to pay £85 prosecution costs.
-
Farming5 days agoWorking Carmarthenshire farm opens gates to visitors with new holiday cottages
-
Entertainment6 days agoSwing and big band classics heading to Torch Theatre
-
Sport5 days agoRising rally star claims maiden Mini Rally Challenge victory
-
Farming5 days agoOuter Hebrides stickmaker to make final Royal Welsh Show appearance
-
Crime5 days agoGreenacres confirms seized dogs are safe as investigation continues
-
Health5 days agoHospital ward closed after highly contagious scabies outbreak
-
Sport5 days agoBluebirds give new home strip first run-out
-
Crime6 days agoWelsh-born woman Ruth Ellis granted pardon 71 years after execution






