Defendant in Toddler Murder Case States He Was ‘Building a Bond’ with Child

A man facing charges of abusing and murdering his girlfriend’s 22-month-old son testified to jurors that he was developing a connection with the child. Teesside Crown Court was informed that Charlie Roberts sustained a fatal head injury at Christopher Stockton’s (38) residence in Darlington during January, while exclusively under Mr. Stockton’s supervision. Mr. Stockton has entered pleas of not guilty to charges of murder and child cruelty. Concurrently, Charlie’s mother, Paula Roberts, has pleaded guilty to child neglect, acknowledging her failure to secure medical attention for her son. Mr. Stockton informed the jurors that he was unaware of the origin of bruises Charlie sustained in the months preceding his death, asserting that he was not accountable for them. The court heard that Charlie had been under Mr. Stockton’s exclusive care for 18 minutes when, at approximately 09:00 on January 12, Mr. Stockton contacted 999, reporting that the toddler was unresponsive and not breathing at the family’s residence on Frosterley Drive. Mr. Stockton asserted that Charlie had choked on a biscuit; however, medical professionals at Newcastle’s Royal Victoria Infirmary promptly harbored suspicions. Scans subsequently disclosed that the boy had experienced significant brain hemorrhage, which ultimately led to his demise the subsequent day. Testimony presented to the court indicated that Mr. Stockton initially encountered Roberts approximately six years prior, when he sold her a vehicle, and they maintained sporadic communication thereafter. Their romantic relationship commenced in January 2023, following the dissolution of his marriage. He was introduced to Charlie during the toddler’s first birthday celebration in March of the same year. During questioning by his barrister, Jamie Hill KC, Mr. Stockton stated that he lacked prior experience in raising a toddler, describing it as a “learning curve,” but affirmed that he was establishing a connection with Charlie. He described Charlie as “usually a very well-behaved” child who enjoyed playing independently or with others, though he typically preferred his mother’s company over that of other adults. Mr. Hill inquired, “Did you harbour any ill feeling towards him?” to which Mr. Stockton responded, “No.” Mr. Stockton was questioned regarding bruises observed on Charlie in subsequent months, including one on the toddler’s forehead after spending a night at Mr. Stockton’s residence on Neasham Road in June. However, Mr. Stockton maintained he was not accountable for these injuries. Mr. Stockton asserted that some of the bruises resulted from “accidents,” but he did not personally witness any of them happening. The court was informed that Roberts observed Charlie was “not himself” and appeared notably uneasy in the presence of men, an issue she attributed to problems with his biological father. Mr. Hill questioned Mr. Stockton about whether he was harming Charlie, and the defendant responded: “I wasn’t doing anything to Charlie, no.” An investigation was initiated by social services in May after Charlie was hospitalized with bruises and a nosebleed. However, the court heard that Charlie was returned to Roberts’ care after five days, with no additional measures implemented. Mr. Stockton stated that the relationship grew “very rocky” due to Roberts’ unpredictable moods and mental health challenges, but he chose to commit and attempt to “rekindle” it. Earlier in the trial, it was revealed that Ms. Roberts concealed a camera in Charlie’s room in September, prompted by concerns that Mr. Stockton might be “smothering” the boy to prevent him from crying when being put to bed. Mr. Stockton informed jurors that he would calm Charlie by making a “shushing noise” in an effort to “soothe him,” and he expressed being “upset and hurt” by the allegation that he had caused him harm. On a separate occasion, Roberts communicated with a relative via message, stating that she had observed Mr. Stockton flicking Charlie near his eye. Mr. Stockton explained that he was “wafting a fly away” from Charlie’s face during feeding. Roberts subsequently informed him that if she believed he was harming her son, their relationship would end. Mr. Hill questioned, “Were you hurting him [or] doing anything to him?” He recounted that Charlie also sustained an injury to the back of his head after tripping over a toy and falling against a fireplace, an injury Mr. Stockton attended to. The court was informed that Mr. Stockton had relocated to the family’s residence seven days prior to Charlie’s fatal injuries. He had been awake until 05:30 on January 12, obtaining only three hours of sleep before being entrusted with the toddler’s sole care. Mr. Hill inquired, “Had you assaulted Charlie?” “No,” Mr. Stockton answered, further stating that he had no explanation for Charlie’s collapse. Mr. Hill then asked if he had “done anything to harm Charlie at any point” during their acquaintance, to which Mr. Stockton responded: “No.” During cross-examination, prosecutor Nicholas Lumley KC confirmed with Mr. Stockton that Charlie had been his “usual healthy self” that morning, prior to deteriorating from “fine to beyond help in moments.” Mr. Lumley questioned, “How did he end up in that state?” Mr. Stockton’s response was: “I don’t know.” The defendant acknowledged the appearance of the situation but asserted he did nothing to injure Charlie. Mr. Lumley posed the question: “It does look like you killed him doesn’t it?” “On paper yes,” Mr. Stockton answered, but maintained that was “not what happened.” Mr. Lumley stated: “You are a violent, yet chillingly cold killer aren’t you?” Mr. Stockton responded: “No I’m not.” The proceedings are ongoing.