DANNY CONROY FROM LERWICK SHEETLAND CAUGHT WITH INDECENT IMAGES AND FANTASIES ABOUT LOCAL CHILDREN
| Red Rose Database
Shetland Lerwick Child Abuser
In a serious case heard at Lerwick Sheriff Court, 51-year-old Danny Conroy, a resident of Arheim, Lerwick, was found to be in possession of indecent images depicting children as young as nine years old. The court proceedings revealed disturbing details about Conroy's digital activities, including his naming of some images after a suspected local child about whom he harboured inappropriate fantasies.
Prosecutor Duncan MacKenzie outlined that police had initiated an investigation into Conroy’s activities after receiving intelligence suggesting he possessed illicit material. On April 5th of the previous year, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Conroy’s residence, uncovering a mobile phone, a computer tower, and a collection of hard drives. Initial examinations of these devices indicated the presence of indecent images, prompting further forensic analysis through a comprehensive cybercrime investigation.
During the search, authorities discovered a total of 12 images classified as Category C, which typically involve explicit depictions of children. However, the investigation also revealed nearly 12,000 additional images that had been deleted but remained recoverable, as they were stored on the hard drives with data recovery software installed. Furthermore, approximately 36,000 images were identified as non-sexualised pictures of children, such as those from family albums or commercial sources, which the court referred to as “indicative” images.
The police investigation uncovered that some of the images were duplicates, and the presence of data recovery software suggested that Conroy could have attempted to recover deleted files. When questioned by authorities, Conroy admitted to having occasional fantasies about children but insisted he would never act on these thoughts. He also acknowledged that indecent images would be found on his devices, though he claimed the number would not be as high as the images recovered during the investigation.
Defence solicitor Tommy Allan highlighted that Conroy had a “serious background” of personal difficulties stemming from past experiences, which he suggested might have contributed to his actions. The court, however, took the matter seriously and decided to defer sentencing to allow for the preparation of criminal justice social work reports and assessments regarding restrictions of liberty.
In addition to ordering the forfeiture of Conroy’s electronic devices, Sheriff Ian Cruickshank mandated that Conroy comply with sexual offence notification requirements for an unspecified period. The case remains ongoing, with sentencing scheduled for a future date after the completion of all necessary reports and assessments.
Prosecutor Duncan MacKenzie outlined that police had initiated an investigation into Conroy’s activities after receiving intelligence suggesting he possessed illicit material. On April 5th of the previous year, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Conroy’s residence, uncovering a mobile phone, a computer tower, and a collection of hard drives. Initial examinations of these devices indicated the presence of indecent images, prompting further forensic analysis through a comprehensive cybercrime investigation.
During the search, authorities discovered a total of 12 images classified as Category C, which typically involve explicit depictions of children. However, the investigation also revealed nearly 12,000 additional images that had been deleted but remained recoverable, as they were stored on the hard drives with data recovery software installed. Furthermore, approximately 36,000 images were identified as non-sexualised pictures of children, such as those from family albums or commercial sources, which the court referred to as “indicative” images.
The police investigation uncovered that some of the images were duplicates, and the presence of data recovery software suggested that Conroy could have attempted to recover deleted files. When questioned by authorities, Conroy admitted to having occasional fantasies about children but insisted he would never act on these thoughts. He also acknowledged that indecent images would be found on his devices, though he claimed the number would not be as high as the images recovered during the investigation.
Defence solicitor Tommy Allan highlighted that Conroy had a “serious background” of personal difficulties stemming from past experiences, which he suggested might have contributed to his actions. The court, however, took the matter seriously and decided to defer sentencing to allow for the preparation of criminal justice social work reports and assessments regarding restrictions of liberty.
In addition to ordering the forfeiture of Conroy’s electronic devices, Sheriff Ian Cruickshank mandated that Conroy comply with sexual offence notification requirements for an unspecified period. The case remains ongoing, with sentencing scheduled for a future date after the completion of all necessary reports and assessments.