Looking at the case, it appears he was guilty of possession of images, not distribution or production. If he had been convicted of distributing or producing these images he would definitely be in jail. However, the current sentencing guidelines consider possession to be a lesser offence.
Given that some of the images were category A, the starting point for sentencing is 1 year with a range of 26 weeks to 3 years. I think he pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity so that gives an automatic one third reduction in sentence. The judge therefore settled on a 15 month sentence discounted to 10 months due to the guilty plea.
It appears that it is accepted by the prosecution that he was abused as a child which may have influenced the sentence. However, my view is that this sentence appears to be lighter than I would have expected. There are a couple of mitigating factors (no previous relevant convictions and previous good character) but a number of aggravating factors. I would therefore have expected a higher sentence. There may, of course, be other factors that influenced the judge's decision but do not appear in this report.
Without access to the sentencing reports I'm not going to comment on whether or not the sentence should have been suspended.
He will, of course, have this conviction on his record for life. He will never again be able to work with children.