Latest Offenders Warwick

Description

When the police seized a mans computer they found movie clips of children as young as one being sexually abused by adults. But a judge has decided the public will be better protected by Daniel Taylor having treatment and doing unpaid work than by him being jailed. Taylor, 26, of St Marys Crescent, Leamington, had pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to three charges of making indecent images of children. He was given a three-year community order and ordered to take part in a three-year sex offenders treatment programme, and to do 60 hours of unpaid work. Recorder Christopher Hotten QC also made Taylor subject to a rehabilitation activity for 30 days and ordered him to register as a sex offender for five years and to pay 600 costs. What did the judge actually say? Sentencing Taylor, Recorder Hotten told him: The seriousness of what you did is that without consumers, theres no market. Everybody who downloads images such as these helps to create a market and provides a reason for children to be abused in the appalling way these children were. That is what you have done. Sitting alone in your room, it isolates you from what is going on all to children over the world in appalling circumstances. But it seems to me the most important thing is to do what can be done to deter you from behaving in this way in the future. Although this clearly passes the custody threshold, the public is likely to be better protected by my not sending you to prison today. What was the evidence? Prosecutor James Dunstan said that in August 2015 the police went to Taylors home after receiving intelligence that someone at the address had been downloading indecent material of children. The door was answered by his partner, but when the officers then spoke to Taylor he told them they would find images on his red laptop, and showed them where it was. The laptop and a memory stick were seized, and Taylor, who had downloaded images using a file-sharing app, was arrested. When the police examined the laptop and the memory stick they found a total of 245 indecent images of children, all but five of which were movies. They were all accessible to the user, not having been deleted after being viewed, and had file names which were explicit about their content, said Mr Dunstan. There were 110 category A images showing children being subjected to the worst kind of abuse, along with 128 category B images and seven category C images. And Mr Dunstan said that explicit search terms used by Taylor showed he had specifically been looking for indecent images of both girls and boys. When he was interviewed Taylor admitted he had downloaded a couple of hundred images of children over the previous six to nine months, which he said he had initially done out of curiosity, but admitted getting sexual satisfaction from them. Anything said in mitigation? Andrew Tucker, defending, conceded: The offences themselves, of course, are horrible in their nature. But he said Taylor, who had not distributed any of the material, had shown complete and utter frankness directing the police to the laptop and making highly significant admissions. He has shown remorse, and he does have insight and understanding into what hes done.

Description

A MANIPULATIVE sexual predator raped a young girl whose mother he had met through a dating website and threatened to kill her familys dog if she told anyone. In what a judge described as the grossest breach of trust, the man, who cannot be named to protect the identities of his victims, also sexually abused the girls two sisters. The 47-year-old, of no fixed address, pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to raping the girl when she was 14 or 15 and a number of offences of sexual assault. He was given an extended prison sentence of nine years in jail, of which he will have to serve at least two-thirds, after which he will be released on licence for the rest of the term and for an additional three years. He was also ordered to register as a sex offender for life and banned from entering Rugby for 15 years. Prosecutor John Hallissey said a relationship developed after the girls mother met the man through a dating website. But after they moved in together there were intermittent disclosures by the girl to a friend, and the matter was reported to school staff, only for her to withdraw what she said. When she was 13 she made a further disclosure at school, asking for her abuser to be present with a view to confronting him, but withdrew her complaint when her mother turned up as well. But eventually the police became involved and she took part in a video-recorded interview in which she described how she had been systematically abused after the defendant had moved in. On a number of occasions he walked in on her when she was in the bath or the shower and touched her inappropriately, after which he would be apologetic. But on one occasion when she was 13 or 14 he called her into his bedroom and pushed her down onto the bed, and when she tried to get up, he pushed her back down and put a pillow over her face, telling her to shut up or he would hurt her. Her abuser had told her that whenever he acted in that way he tried to imagine she was his real daughter so that he would stop, but that a red mist descended over him. But he ignored her desperate attempts to tell him she was his daughter and that he could fight the red mist, and performed a sex act on her before calming down and apologising. Sometimes after he abused her, he would cry and she found herself in the strange situation of having to comfort him. He also subjected her to threats when she did something wrong, telling her he would tell her mother unless she was his for a period of time. On another occasion he followed her into the bathroom, ordered her to take off her clothes and then to perform a sex act on him, but she refused. Then on a day when she was off school sick, she woke up with him lying next to her and touching her. The girl told him to get off, but he told her if she did not comply he would hurt her mother or kill the dog. She tried to get away but he pulled her back and raped her. Mr Hallissey said that after the girl came forward, her sisters also revealed the defendant had inappropriately touched them when they were 13 or 14. Graeme Simpson, defending, said: He has struggled with his demons, even at the time of committing these offences. But Judge Richard Griffith-Jones said: He spotted she was a good-natured as well as a sensitive and intelligent girl, and one way of manipulating her was to make her feel sorry for him as well as by being intimidating. And he told the defendant: You were a sexual predator, and a clever and manipulative one at that. You set the parameters by a mixture of bribes and threats, sometimes emotional and sometimes physical, and it went on for years. It is the grossest breach of trust.