ANDREW THIRLWELL FROM REDCAR CAUGHT WITH NEARLY 900 CHILD INDECENT IMAGES IN SHOCKING CASE

In a case that has sent shockwaves through the community of Redcar, Andrew Thirlwell, aged 47, faced the court after being found in possession of an alarming collection of nearly 900 indecent images and videos depicting children. The incident, which came to light last May, involved a detailed investigation that uncovered the extent of Thirlwell’s illegal activities, leading to his arrest and subsequent court proceedings.

Judge Stephen Ashurst, presiding over the case at Teesside Crown Court, took a moment to commend Thirlwell’s family for their unwavering support during this difficult time. The judge emphasized that the support from Thirlwell’s wife and children could play a crucial role in his rehabilitation, stating, “The support of your wife and your children for you should really be commended. There are others who would simply wipe their hands of a man in these circumstances.”

Despite the gravity of the charges, the court heard that Thirlwell’s family remained steadfast in their backing, even after his arrest. The investigation initially involved intelligence reports that led to the detention of two other individuals; however, they were released without charges. During the investigation, authorities seized Thirlwell’s phone, laptop, and other electronic devices. Despite these seizures, no evidence was found linking others to his crimes, and the focus remained solely on Thirlwell.

The police discovered a disturbing collection of 879 indecent images and videos stored on a hard drive and a computer tower located at Thirlwell’s residence on Wincanton Road, Redcar. Among these, 163 images were classified at the most serious level under law, indicating the severity of the content involved. During a police interview, Thirlwell appeared visibly upset and admitted to his actions, offering a frank confession that he had been downloading such material over a period of five years.

Prosecutor Rachel Masters outlined that Thirlwell expressed remorse for the victims depicted in the images. He admitted that he was aroused by the material but insisted he had never distributed or shared it with others. Thirlwell, a former employee of Redcar and Cleveland Council, pleaded guilty to three charges of making indecent images of children.

Defense counsel Robin Turton described Thirlwell as a responsible and law-abiding citizen who had been overwhelmed by loneliness, which he claimed contributed to his interest in child pornography. Turton explained that Thirlwell had sought help and was actively trying to rebuild his life, supported by his wife and adult children. The family reportedly held a meeting after Thirlwell’s arrest and his admission of guilt, reaffirming their support and desire for him to receive treatment and understand the root causes of his behavior.

Turton emphasized that Thirlwell was eager to undergo therapy to address what he called “dysfunctional behavior” and that those closest to him did not see him as a lost cause. The lawyer also highlighted the personal consequences Thirlwell had already endured, including losing his job and experiencing intense shame and embarrassment from his actions.

Judge Ashurst addressed Thirlwell directly, acknowledging his honesty in admitting his misconduct. The judge noted that Thirlwell’s access to the images involved real children, a fact he was well aware of. The judge also recognized that Thirlwell had witnessed traumatic events during his military service but clarified that he did not distribute or share the images and deeply regretted the suspicion cast on others.

Considering the circumstances, the judge stated that there was no prospect of Thirlwell benefiting from a sex offender treatment program within a short prison sentence. He referred to guidelines from the Sentencing Council, which suggest that such programs can be a suitable alternative to incarceration if there is a genuine chance for rehabilitation.

Ultimately, Thirlwell was sentenced to a one-year prison term, suspended for two years. The court also imposed a sexual harm prevention order restricting his internet use and mandated registration on the sex offenders’ register for ten years. The sentence reflects the seriousness of the offense but also considers the potential for rehabilitation and the importance of ongoing monitoring and support.