ANDREW PLIMMER FROM DARLINGTON CAUGHT WITH CHILD ABUSE IMAGES AT WORK
In September 2014, a disturbing case emerged involving Andrew Plimmer, a 40-year-old administrative assistant based in Darlington, who was found to have downloaded and stored child abuse images on his work computer.The incident came to light after Plimmer carelessly left a printout of one of the indecent photographs in his desk drawer, which was discovered by an apprentice at his workplace.
Upon finding the explicit material, the apprentice promptly alerted his superiors, who then contacted law enforcement authorities.
The police responded swiftly, visiting Plimmer’s residence in Darlington to carry out a search.
During the search, officers seized three laptops from his home and uncovered evidence that he had been actively searching the internet for illegal content.
The investigation revealed that Plimmer had been using these devices to access and download child abuse images, raising serious concerns about his activities.
Legal proceedings took place at Teesside Crown Court, where prosecutor Harry Hadfield detailed the case.
Plimmer’s lawyer, Jonathan Harley, acknowledged that his client might have been motivated by a misguided desire for a thrill, suggesting that the illegal searches were driven by a need for excitement rather than sexual gratification.
Harley emphasized that Plimmer, a father of two, had no prior criminal record and described his internet activity as a brief lapse of judgment, referring to it as “two weeks of stupidity.” During the hearing, it was revealed that Plimmer had been living in his car after authorities ordered him to leave his family home on Brignall Moor Crescent, Darlington.
The court was informed that he had since secured a new job, but restrictions were placed on his internet use and he was ordered to sign the sex offenders’ register.
Judge Peter Armstrong addressed Plimmer directly, expressing his confusion over why he engaged in such offending behavior.
The judge noted that although the number of images was relatively low, the fact that the activity occurred both at work and at home was concerning.
He stated, “Why you should have got involved in offending of this nature for a short period in 2013 is difficult to understand.
You say it wasn’t for sexual thrills, but the thrill of simply doing something illegal.
That may well have been a factor had there been just one image.
But this went on at work, and at home on laptops.” Judge Armstrong sentenced Plimmer to six months in prison, suspended for two years, with supervision.
He also ordered that Plimmer must register as a sex offender and have his internet activity monitored.
The court confirmed that police had discovered 14 images and two short video clips, one of which depicted girls being sexually abused, during their investigation.
Harley highlighted that despite the gravity of the charges, Plimmer’s partner remained supportive, and they were working to address the repercussions of his actions.
Harley described his client’s current situation as living out of his car and expressed that Plimmer was unable to provide a clear explanation for his behavior, which he characterized as “a two-week period following years of adherence to the law.” He suggested that the motivation behind his actions might not have been purely sexual but rather a thrill-seeking behavior associated with viewing illegal material at work and engaging in forbidden activities.
The case underscores the serious nature of possessing and viewing child abuse images, and the court’s decision reflects the importance of addressing such offenses with appropriate legal measures.
