Locations
Lingdale Road North, Oxton, Birkenhead, Merseyside, CH41
Description
A paedophile’s cover story was busted when police officers heard the ringtone of the mobile he pretended he had sold.
Leon Clark claimed he no longer owned the phone that investigators had linked to his home.
But his lie was quickly exposed and the recovery of the device led to the discovery of horrific images of children being sexually abused.
Police raided Clark’s Wirral home in June of last year after his email address and phone number were linked to the property.
The 46-year-old denied downloading indecent images of children and claimed he had sold his mobile.
But when the officers called his number they heard it ringing and found it hidden behind a radiator.
Ken Grant, prosecuting, said dozens of indecent images of children were recovered when it was examined, the most serious involving the abuse of a little girl of around three-years-old.
Liverpool Crown Court heard Clark had 39 convictions for 88 offences - including being jailed for two years in 2010 for sexually assaulting a girl under 13, and for downloading indecent images of children.
His convictions also include repeatedly failing to comply with the requirements of the Sexual Offences Register.
Clark, of Lingdale Road North, Birkenhead, pleaded guilty to possessing a total of 58 indecent images on the day of the raid and three offences of making indecent images of children in the previous three months.
Jason Smith, defending, said his client’s previous offences of non-compliance with the Sex Offenders Register related to homelessness but that he now had a more settled lifestyle and the ability to comply with court orders.
He added that Clark wanted to co-operate and: “do something to deal with what he accepts is a problem. He wishes to address the problem and show maturity.”
Judge Neil Flewitt, QC, pointed out: “All he needs to do is stop looking at pictures of children.”
The judge jailed Clark for a total of 18 months, including activating a 16-week suspended sentence imposed in April last year for again breaching requirements of the Sex Offenders Register.
The judge said he accepted the number of indecent images of children found on Clark’s phone was not particularly large but he said: “You have an extensive record for other forms of criminality.”
He pointed out that a probation officer said Clark “holds a negative attitude and poses a high risk of re-offending and a medium risk of serious harm to children”.
In an earlier pre-sentence report another officer said the defendant had little motivation to engage with the probation service and Judge Flewitt said he had not seen anything to show a change.
The judge ordered Clark to sign the Sex Offenders Register for ten years and imposed a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for the same length of time.
He said he imposed the latter order “in the hope that over that period you mature and change your attitudes and no longer pose a risk to children. If it is considered you do, an application can be made to extend the order.”