Elstow paedophile jailed for 26 months after thousands of images found on phone

Luton Crown Court
Luton Crown Court. Image: South Beds News Agency

A paedophile from Elstow who took two indecent images of a three-year-girl and had stored hours of child abuse videos was today (Wednesday) jailed for 26 months.

The 25-year-old man, was caught when the police received intelligence that he had downloaded the worst type of child abuse images.

Prosecutor Douglas Page told Luton crown court that officers raided his home on 12 May.  When they told him they had found an image of an 11-year-old child being raped on his mobile he said it must have been hacked.

When the Samsung phone was examined in detail the police discovered 333 still and 10 moving Category A images, the highest level. There were 270 at Category B and 1,302 at Category C.

A further investigation of his mega cloud storage resulted in two encrypted folders being found. These included over five hours of Category A footage, along with others at the lower category, along with some extreme pornography.

The total running time was seven hours, 19 mins and 57 seconds, said Mr Page. Also found were two indecent images he had taken of a three-year-old child.

The Elstow man appeared for sentence having pleaded guilty to taking a Category B indecent image, taking a Category C indecent image, causing a child to engage in sexual activity, and downloading Category A, B and C images and extreme pornography.

Robert English, defending, said the defendant had no previous convictions. He said: “He is at a loss as to why he behaved in this way. His life is a complete mess. He is the author of his own misfortune. He is very sorry and wishes he could turn the clock back.”

Jailing him, Recorder Patrick Fields said: “These are awful these images of children being abused for sexual gratification. These are real children being abused.”

He must register as a sex offender and abide by the terms of a sexual harm protection order.

Reporting by South Beds News Agency

Update: This article was updated on 20 October 2022 at 15:58 after a request that the defendant’s address given in court be removed. While details of a defendant are public, unless there are court restrictions, we are happy to make this amendment.

Update: This article was updated on 11 August 2023 at 16:05 to remove the name of the defendant as it was having an impact on someone not connected to this case. As responsible journalists, we must consider how our reporting impacts others. We believe the impact of including the defendant’s name to be greater than not including it, especially as the defendant’s identity can be found through other means.

The decision to do this is for this specific article only and does not set a precedent that a similar decision will be made in the future.