COLIN STORR FROM EGREMONT ESCAPES PRISON DESPITE CHILD SEX OFFENSES IN CUMBRIA
| Red Rose Database
Egremont Child Sexual Abuser
In a case that has shocked the local community of Egremont and the wider Cumbria region, Colin Storr, aged 53, faced serious allegations related to the possession and distribution of indecent images of children, as well as historical child abuse. The proceedings took place at Carlisle Crown Court, where the gravity of his offenses was thoroughly examined and discussed.
Storr was charged with a total of 13 counts involving the downloading of indecent photographs of minors. These images, which numbered over 700, depicted children aged between three and 16 years old. The images were categorized on the official five-tier scale of seriousness, with some classified as level four, indicating a high level of severity. The charges also included allegations of assaulting a boy nearly four decades ago, an incident that added a disturbing dimension to the case.
Prosecutor Elizabeth Muir provided details about the case, revealing that after the publication of these allegations in the Whitehaven News, a concerned individual came forward to police authorities. This person disclosed that he had been assaulted by Storr during his childhood. The abuse reportedly occurred on three separate occasions between September 1974 and September 1976, when the victim was approximately nine or ten years old, while Storr was around 15 or 16.
Initially, Storr denied the charges of indecent assault, but he later admitted to engaging in sexual acts with the young boy. The court heard that Storr, who resides on Chaucer Avenue in Egremont, had faced significant personal challenges in his later life, which may have been influenced by his past actions and mental health issues.
Since December of the previous year, Storr had been held in custody, primarily due to concerns regarding his mental health. His legal representative, Kim Whittlestone, argued that he had taken substantial steps towards improving his mental well-being during his time in detention. She explained that Storr had initially turned to the internet for solace after suffering a back injury that prevented him from working. Unfortunately, this led him to access increasingly inappropriate material, starting with adult pornography and eventually progressing to images involving children.
During sentencing, Judge Peter Hughes acknowledged the seriousness of Storr’s conduct but also emphasized the significant time elapsed since the offenses. The judge pointed out that the abuse occurred when the victim was just nine or ten years old, and Storr was a teenager at the time. He noted that Storr had already spent a considerable period in custody and had made some progress with his mental health. The judge expressed a desire for Storr to complete a treatment program, which was a key factor in his decision to avoid a prison sentence.
Instead, Judge Hughes imposed a three-year community order, requiring Storr to participate in a specified treatment program. Additionally, Storr was ordered to sign the Sex Offenders’ Register and was subjected to a sexual offences prevention order for ten years. He was also mandated to pay a surcharge of £60 and was banned from working with children or vulnerable adults. The court’s decision aimed to balance the seriousness of the offenses with the recognition of the time that had passed and the efforts made towards rehabilitation.
Storr was charged with a total of 13 counts involving the downloading of indecent photographs of minors. These images, which numbered over 700, depicted children aged between three and 16 years old. The images were categorized on the official five-tier scale of seriousness, with some classified as level four, indicating a high level of severity. The charges also included allegations of assaulting a boy nearly four decades ago, an incident that added a disturbing dimension to the case.
Prosecutor Elizabeth Muir provided details about the case, revealing that after the publication of these allegations in the Whitehaven News, a concerned individual came forward to police authorities. This person disclosed that he had been assaulted by Storr during his childhood. The abuse reportedly occurred on three separate occasions between September 1974 and September 1976, when the victim was approximately nine or ten years old, while Storr was around 15 or 16.
Initially, Storr denied the charges of indecent assault, but he later admitted to engaging in sexual acts with the young boy. The court heard that Storr, who resides on Chaucer Avenue in Egremont, had faced significant personal challenges in his later life, which may have been influenced by his past actions and mental health issues.
Since December of the previous year, Storr had been held in custody, primarily due to concerns regarding his mental health. His legal representative, Kim Whittlestone, argued that he had taken substantial steps towards improving his mental well-being during his time in detention. She explained that Storr had initially turned to the internet for solace after suffering a back injury that prevented him from working. Unfortunately, this led him to access increasingly inappropriate material, starting with adult pornography and eventually progressing to images involving children.
During sentencing, Judge Peter Hughes acknowledged the seriousness of Storr’s conduct but also emphasized the significant time elapsed since the offenses. The judge pointed out that the abuse occurred when the victim was just nine or ten years old, and Storr was a teenager at the time. He noted that Storr had already spent a considerable period in custody and had made some progress with his mental health. The judge expressed a desire for Storr to complete a treatment program, which was a key factor in his decision to avoid a prison sentence.
Instead, Judge Hughes imposed a three-year community order, requiring Storr to participate in a specified treatment program. Additionally, Storr was ordered to sign the Sex Offenders’ Register and was subjected to a sexual offences prevention order for ten years. He was also mandated to pay a surcharge of £60 and was banned from working with children or vulnerable adults. The court’s decision aimed to balance the seriousness of the offenses with the recognition of the time that had passed and the efforts made towards rehabilitation.