CROSSHOUSE WOMAN CHERYL SNADDON CAUGHT WITH VILE CHILD ABUSE IMAGES AVOIDING PRISON
| Red Rose Database
Crosshouse Rapist
In a disturbing case that has shocked the community of Crosshouse, a young woman named Cheryl Snaddon, aged 22, was found in possession of a large collection of highly disturbing images depicting children being sexually abused and raped. The incident unfolded during an early morning police raid on her residence, where officers seized a laptop computer along with several mobile phones. The police had received an anonymous tip-off that led them to investigate Snaddon's home, and upon inspection, they discovered a significant number of obscene images stored on her devices.
Forensic analysis of the seized devices revealed that out of a total of 47 images, 17 were classified at the most severe levels of depravity. These images predominantly featured young girls, including infants approximately six months old and teenagers. Some of the images depicted babies and children being subjected to torture, highlighting the extreme nature of the material. Additionally, investigators found that Snaddon had downloaded file-wiping software, indicating an attempt to conceal her activities.
During police interviews, Snaddon admitted to downloading the indecent images at her former home in Crosshouse, Ayrshire, between February and July 2014. Prosecutor Susan Brown stated that Snaddon suggested she might have downloaded the images unintentionally, possibly after consuming alcohol. However, she later confessed to the offence, acknowledging her involvement. It was also revealed that Snaddon had created multiple email accounts and used search terms associated with paedophilia, such as “incest” and “father and daughter,” as well as searching for specific age groups ranging from three to fifteen years old.
Defense lawyer Martin Duffy addressed Kilmarnock Sheriff Court, emphasizing that no members of Snaddon's family could explain her motives for committing such acts. Duffy highlighted that Snaddon accepted responsibility for her actions and recognized that this was not a victimless crime. He also pointed out that she was aware of the long-term consequences a conviction could have on her life. At the time of the offence, Snaddon was living with her grandparents and was struggling with alcohol abuse. Her main outlet during this period appeared to be the internet, which she used in an isolated manner.
Mr. Duffy expressed concern over Snaddon's fear of facing a custodial sentence, describing her as terrified of the prospect of imprisonment. In response, Sheriff Shirley Foran acknowledged the seriousness of the offence but noted the surprising nature of her involvement given her age and circumstances. After careful consideration, the sheriff decided not to send Snaddon to prison, instead opting for a community-based sentence. She was sentenced to 200 hours of unpaid work, placed under three years of supervision, and required to remain on the Sex Offenders Register for the same period.
Furthermore, Snaddon is prohibited from having unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 15. She is also forbidden from accessing any internet-enabled devices unless they are equipped with file-wiping software, and she must allow authorities access to any of her electronic equipment at any time. The court's decision underscores the gravity of her actions and the importance of monitoring her activities to prevent further harm. This case serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing issues surrounding online child exploitation and the importance of vigilance in protecting vulnerable children from such heinous crimes.
Forensic analysis of the seized devices revealed that out of a total of 47 images, 17 were classified at the most severe levels of depravity. These images predominantly featured young girls, including infants approximately six months old and teenagers. Some of the images depicted babies and children being subjected to torture, highlighting the extreme nature of the material. Additionally, investigators found that Snaddon had downloaded file-wiping software, indicating an attempt to conceal her activities.
During police interviews, Snaddon admitted to downloading the indecent images at her former home in Crosshouse, Ayrshire, between February and July 2014. Prosecutor Susan Brown stated that Snaddon suggested she might have downloaded the images unintentionally, possibly after consuming alcohol. However, she later confessed to the offence, acknowledging her involvement. It was also revealed that Snaddon had created multiple email accounts and used search terms associated with paedophilia, such as “incest” and “father and daughter,” as well as searching for specific age groups ranging from three to fifteen years old.
Defense lawyer Martin Duffy addressed Kilmarnock Sheriff Court, emphasizing that no members of Snaddon's family could explain her motives for committing such acts. Duffy highlighted that Snaddon accepted responsibility for her actions and recognized that this was not a victimless crime. He also pointed out that she was aware of the long-term consequences a conviction could have on her life. At the time of the offence, Snaddon was living with her grandparents and was struggling with alcohol abuse. Her main outlet during this period appeared to be the internet, which she used in an isolated manner.
Mr. Duffy expressed concern over Snaddon's fear of facing a custodial sentence, describing her as terrified of the prospect of imprisonment. In response, Sheriff Shirley Foran acknowledged the seriousness of the offence but noted the surprising nature of her involvement given her age and circumstances. After careful consideration, the sheriff decided not to send Snaddon to prison, instead opting for a community-based sentence. She was sentenced to 200 hours of unpaid work, placed under three years of supervision, and required to remain on the Sex Offenders Register for the same period.
Furthermore, Snaddon is prohibited from having unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 15. She is also forbidden from accessing any internet-enabled devices unless they are equipped with file-wiping software, and she must allow authorities access to any of her electronic equipment at any time. The court's decision underscores the gravity of her actions and the importance of monitoring her activities to prevent further harm. This case serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing issues surrounding online child exploitation and the importance of vigilance in protecting vulnerable children from such heinous crimes.