ANDREW HOWELL FROM PADIHAM CAUGHT WITH CHILD ABUSE IMAGES IN SHOCKING POLICE DISCOVERY

In December 2014, a disturbing case emerged involving Andrew Howell, a milkman from Padiham, who was found to possess a significant collection of indecent images of children. The incident came to light after Howell's residence was targeted in a burglary, during which his computer was stolen. The device was later recovered and handed over to the police, leading to a detailed investigation that uncovered the troubling content.

According to court reports, authorities discovered approximately 80 images depicting young girls on Howell’s computer. These images included photographs of girls in various poses, some of which appeared to be as young as 10 years old. The collection also contained two short video clips. Importantly, police clarified that none of the images showed the children engaging in sexual activity; rather, they depicted the minors in nude poses, including scenes from nude teen beauty pageants. The police emphasized that while the images were inappropriate, they did not depict explicit sexual acts.

Andrew Howell, aged 48 and a father of three, was charged with six counts of making an indecent photograph of a child. The offences were alleged to have occurred between October 4th and November 30th of the previous year, at his home in South Drive, Padiham. During the court hearing at Pennine Magistrates, Howell admitted to the charges, acknowledging his possession of the images.

Despite the serious nature of the case, Howell was described as a man of previously good character. The magistrates imposed a three-year supervision order, emphasizing the dual goals of punishment and public protection. Chairman Stephen Riley stated, “We need to punish you and protect the public,” underscoring the court’s stance on such offences.

As part of his sentence, Howell was ordered to participate in an internet sex offenders’ programme and to adhere to a six-week curfew from 6 pm to 11:45 pm, seven days a week. Additionally, he was required to register as a sex offender for five years. The court also mandated Howell to pay costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £60.

Prosecutor Dominic Howell explained that the police investigation was initiated after Howell’s house was burgled. During the theft, the computer was stolen but later recovered by a third party who handed it over to authorities. When officers examined the device, they discovered the collection of indecent images. During questioning, Howell claimed he believed the individuals in the images were adults, stating he thought some of the girls appeared older than they actually were. He admitted to downloading the images but could not explain why he had viewed them.

Defence solicitor Daniel Frazer addressed the court, highlighting Howell’s remorse and the personal turmoil he had experienced following the offences, including a relationship breakdown. Frazer acknowledged Howell’s lack of explanation for his actions but emphasized that Howell had not created the images himself; he had only downloaded them. The solicitor stressed that Howell had caused significant distress and recognized that he was solely responsible for his conduct.

While the court acknowledged that custody might be justified, Frazer argued that Howell would not benefit from the support services available through probation. He pointed out that the supervision order, though onerous, would provide intervention and protection for the public over the next three years. Frazer concluded by stating Howell was willing to comply with any court orders and was fully aware of the stigma associated with being on the sex offenders’ register, noting that Howell had already lost his good character as a form of punishment.