ANDREW OLDHAM FROM KNUTSFORD SENTENCED FOR DOWNLOADING CHILD INDECENT IMAGES IN KNUTSFORD

In a recent court hearing held at Stockport Magistrates Court, Andrew David Oldham, a 54-year-old resident of Gaskell Rise, Longridge, was formally sentenced for his involvement in the illegal downloading of indecent images of children. The case drew significant attention due to the nature of the charges and the community's concern over such offenses.

Oldham appeared before the magistrates on Wednesday, January 13, where he pleaded guilty to two separate charges related to the possession and downloading of indecent images. The first charge involved 233 images classified as Category C, which were downloaded over a period spanning from July 22, 2017, to June 11 of the following year. The second charge concerned a Category C video, also downloaded during the same timeframe. Category C images are considered the least severe classification but nonetheless represent a serious breach of the law.

The court was informed that Oldham had previously admitted to these offenses during an earlier hearing, and Wednesday’s session was primarily for sentencing. Magistrates took into account the nature of the images and Oldham’s guilty plea when determining the appropriate punishment. While the law allows for sentences ranging from a community order to up to three years in prison for such offenses, the magistrates opted for a community-based sentence in this case.

As part of his punishment, Oldham was subjected to a community order that includes electronic monitoring through tagging and a strict night-time curfew from 7 pm to 7 am. This curfew will be in effect for a period of 12 weeks, concluding on April 6. Additionally, Oldham is required to participate in a 30-day rehabilitation program facilitated by the Probation Service, aimed at addressing underlying issues and preventing future offenses.

Furthermore, Oldham has been mandated to register as a sex offender for the next five years, a measure designed to monitor and manage his conduct moving forward. In terms of financial penalties, he was fined £120, and ordered to pay £85 in prosecution costs along with a £90 surcharge directed towards victim services. These measures reflect the court’s stance on the seriousness of the offense and its commitment to safeguarding the community from potential harm.