Mother’s Hidden Camera Revealed in Toddler Murder Trial

A murder trial has been informed that a mother installed a hidden camera due to worries that her partner was mistreating her young son. Teesside Crown Court was told that Charlie Roberts, aged 22 months, sustained a fatal head injury at his residence in Darlington in January while exclusively under the care of Christopher Stockton, 38. Mr. Stockton has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and child cruelty, questioning why he was permitted to be alone with Charlie if suspicions of ill-treatment existed. Paula Roberts, Charlie’s 41-year-old mother, has confessed to child neglect for not seeking medical attention for her son after he sustained injuries in the weeks preceding his death. The jury heard that Mr. Stockton contacted 999 on January 12, reporting that Charlie had collapsed at their Frosterley Drive home, merely 18 minutes after he had been left alone with the toddler. He asserted that Charlie was choking on a biscuit; however, medical professionals harbored immediate suspicions, and Charlie passed away the following day due to a catastrophic brain injury. Mr. Stockton, who commenced a relationship with Ms. Roberts in early 2023, underwent several police interviews in the aftermath of Charlie’s death, and the transcripts of these interviews were presented to the jurors. During his concluding interview, officers informed Mr. Stockton that Ms. Roberts had placed a camera above Charlie’s cot in September 2023. The court heard that the detective informed Mr. Stockton that Ms. Roberts had become concerned after listening to him put Charlie to bed. She stated that the boy had cried out but then ceased quickly, prompting her to suspect he might have been “muffled” by a hand placed over his mouth. The police officer inquired, “Did that ever happen?” Mr. Stockton responded, “No.” He explained that he “shushed” Charlie by telling him there was “no need” to cry, which subsequently quieted the child. Mr. Stockton stated that he was aware of the camera’s presence but had not been informed that it was installed due to concerns regarding his actions. He questioned why, if Ms. Roberts genuinely suspected he was harming her son, he was repeatedly left in sole charge of Charlie, adding: “Nobody at any point raised any concern.” The court was informed that social services had previously conducted an investigation after bruises were discovered on Charlie, but no additional measures were considered requisite. Mr. Stockton also questioned why the camera was “never on.” He confirmed that Charlie was in perfect health when Ms. Roberts departed their residence around 08:45 on January 12. Mr. Stockton confessed that he had remained awake until 05:30 and woke up three hours later, having been watching television and contending with pneumonia. The interviewing officer proposed that he might consequently have been “tired” and “possibly irritable,” to which Mr. Stockton responded: “No, not with Charlie.” He stated that the toddler was initially distressed by his mother’s departure but subsequently became content playing with a plastic tunnel in their living room. Mr. Stockton informed police that Charlie emerged from the tunnel, made a sound indicative of choking, and then collapsed, which led to the 999 call. Police officers indicated that no evidence of Charlie choking was found, but doctors had determined he sustained a significant blow to his head, which would have caused an almost immediate collapse and ultimately his death. “I can’t explain that,” Mr. Stockton stated, further adding: “He didn’t bang his head while he was with me.” The interviewing officer remarked that Mr. Stockton was presenting an “impossible” scenario and extended him the “opportunity” to revise his statement. Mr. Stockton, a mechanical engineer, responded: “You can give me as many opportunities as you like but I’ve given you the truth for what happened that morning. I can’t give it any other way because that’s exactly what happened.” The trial is ongoing.