Can anything be done about this sentence? TW: child abuse

[IfYouDontAsk]

Trigger warning: references to child sexual abuse below.

A man has been given a 12 month suspended sentence by Norwich Magistrates Court for possession of indecent images of children, including 39 that were Category A (the most serious). He’s also admitted a charge of possessing 100 "grossly offensive" extreme pornographic images and videos.

12 month suspended sentence for being in possession of images showing the absolute worst, most depraved abuse of children. Creating a market for these images and therefore contributing to the abuse of these poor children who will most likely be emotionally scarred for the rest of their lives. I am so ANGRY at this pathetic sentence.

‘ Ian Taylor, chair of the bench of magistrates, said: "These offences would normally attract immediate custody
"However, because of the time lag, no reoffending and because probation feel they can rehabilitate you it's going to be an unusual sentence because we're going to suspend the sentence."’

Rehabilitate a 66 year old sex offender?? This isn’t a 17 year old that’s nicked a loaf of bread from the supermarket.
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23632228.norwich-trans-woman-sentenced-indecent-images/?ref=rss

I’m aware that members of the public can report unduly lenient Crown Court sentences to the Attorney General for review but as this sentence was handed down by a Magistrates Court is there anything that can be done to put this paedophile in prison where he belongs?

it centres men because for the majority of time it's existed its been run by men.

I honestly don’t understand why custodial sentences aren’t set as a MINIMUM for people committing online child sex offences. It’s a disgrace. I’d much rather someone with this offence locked up than some other people.

I sit through these cases every day. This is a fairly normal sentence for this type of offence, unfortunately.

I don’t think it’s really fair to accuse the judiciary (or which magistrates are not actually a part) of being paedophiles. Sentencing guidelines these days have tight parameters. They can only work with what they have before them. I’ve seen people with thousands of the worst type offences avoiding prison on many occasions. I’ve even seen people who’ve committed contact offences being given suspended sentences.

Lobby your MP

I think that these offences are so frequent that they cannot imprison all these men as there are not enough prisons to house them . There was a TV investigation programme and they are supposed to have rigorous supervision at home on probation, but given the state of probation services and the police, yes there are thousands of these men living near all of us, and many of them will be carrying on exactly as before.

That is depressing 😕

Has the Home Secretary made a statement? I thought this shit wasn't going to be allowed anymore.

This is outside my field of expertise but from my brief research I think it can be challenged under the ULSS

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/unduly-lenient-sentence-scheme/

Are all offences included?No. Only certain kinds of offences may be reviewed.
These include:

• offences that are triable on indictment (i.e. in the Crown Court) such as murder, rape and robbery; and
• some offences that are triable either way (i.e. in either the Crown Court or magistrates’ court) that are specified in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Reviews of Sentencing) Order 2006/1116, Schedule 1, made by the Secretary of State under section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Schedule 1, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1116#commentary-key-cddb3abbab11fcf13fa1c950ac4bbcf4
(ga)an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent photographs of children);

Protection of Children Act 1978 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37
Section 1,
(1)[F1Subject to sections 1A and 1B,] it is an offence for a person—

(a)to take, or permit to be taken [F2or to make], any indecent photograph [F2or pseudo-photograph] of a child F3. . .; or

(b)to distribute or show such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs]; or

(c)to have in his possession such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs], with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or

(d)to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs], or intends to do so.

Also this part of schedule 1
(ha)an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/160
(1)[F2Subject to section 160A,] it is an offence for a person to have any indecent photograph [F3or pseudo-photograph]of a child F4. . . in his possession.

This one doesn't require intent to distribute/sell the images

I'm not even sure it is just trans teflon in this case. Jail terms of people who "only" view images online aren't as automatic or as long as they should be.

Definitely true. A guy I used to work with (who was fired due to having temper tantrums) was found to have over 1000 child abuse images, over 300 of which were category A. He got an 8 month suspended sentence, the judge said that the best way to get people like him to stop was treatment rather than prison.

Why not both?

The guy moved counties during the court case, so there's a fair chance his neighbours have no idea what he's done.

I don’t believe that padeophiles can be treated so I think the best place for them is always prison.

Why are judges/magistrates so keen to keep these people out of prison? Is it just that there’s too many of them to be able to lock up? I’m sure that’s a factor but I also think these are crimes that just aren’t taken seriously enough.

JaniceBattersby I totally get that there are sentencing guidelines but the magistrate in this case absolutely had the option to give this man a custodial sentence. Why give him a suspended sentence? Who believes that a 66 year old paedophile can be rehabilitated? It’s not that the magistrates’s hands were tied and unable to hand down a custodial sentence.

bloody Telegraph newspaper reporting it all as She.....

@IfYouDontAsk I absolutely agree about rehabilitation for paedophiles being almost impossible…and I have had the head of reducing reoffending at a sex offenders prison say the same to me!!

When people have viewed images of children being abused they have crossed a line into acting on their urges. For me that represents a significant risk and a risk that should be managed by time in custody while they are properly assessed.

Im not sure what the answer for dealing with sex offender like these, but I’m certain the way the criminal justice system works at the moment is not working. Rehabilitation for sexual offenders is sooooo different from rehabilitation for those who have committed other offences.

In my opinion, if accessing the on-line abuse of children were accessing Islamic State, then every single accessor would be rounded up and the lines of internet communication would be cut down.

Ridiculously low sentence.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/doctor-avoid-jail-put-semen-woman-coffee/