DAVID THOMPSON SENTENCED IN HULL FOR CHILD SEX OFFENCES WITH LENIENT SENTENCE
In June 2021, a case involving David Thompson, a resident of Hull, drew significant attention at Hull Crown Court due to the serious nature of his offences and the leniency of his sentencing.Thompson, aged 61 and living on Parthian Road in east Hull, was found guilty of engaging in disturbing online activities targeting minors, which included a series of child sex offences that shocked the local community and raised concerns about online safety and justice.
According to court proceedings, Thompson had initiated a conversation with a person he believed to be a 12-year-old boy on a chat platform popular among gay and bisexual men.
Unbeknownst to him, the individual was an undercover police decoy.
Despite the clear indication of the boy’s young age, Thompson persisted in the conversation, which soon turned sexual in nature.
Prosecutor Michele Stuart-Lofthouse explained that Thompson was unaware that he was communicating with law enforcement and that he had asked the decoy for explicit images, which he also sent in return.
The conversation escalated as Thompson requested images of the boy performing sexual acts, even though the boy stated he was in school at the time.
Police acted swiftly, arresting Thompson at his home in July 2020.
During a search of his residence, authorities seized his computer, which contained hundreds of indecent images.
Among these were over 100 images and videos classified as Category A, the most severe category of child exploitation material.
The material included images of bestiality and children as young as two years old, highlighting the disturbing extent of Thompson’s collection.
During police interviews, Thompson claimed he was chatting with multiple individuals online and did not remember the decoy.
He stated that he believed people pretended to be different ages online and expressed that if he had known the boy was only 12, he would have questioned why he was in that chat room.
Thompson also claimed that his sexual interests were primarily directed towards males in their late teens.
Despite admitting to possessing the indecent images, he insisted he did not have a sexual attraction to children.
Judge David Tremberg addressed the court, acknowledging the gravity of Thompson’s actions but also considering his health and social circumstances.
The judge remarked that Thompson was very close to being sent to prison but ultimately decided to suspend the sentence, citing his serious health issues and social isolation.
The judge emphasized the depravity of Thompson’s behaviour, describing it as sexually predatory and a violation of innocence, which is a fear shared by many parents.
He stated, “You sort sexual gratification from indecent images of children, especially boys.
You viewed these images over a length of time, there as a large number of them and the ages of some of these children was very young.
Your behaviour against what you thought was a 12-year-old boy was depraved and corrupt.
Your conduct was such as to take away his innocence.
This was sexually predatory behaviour all parents fear.” Despite the severity of the offences, the judge credited Thompson for his guilty pleas and took into account his poor health and social circumstances, including his recent years of social isolation, which would make incarceration particularly difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court sentenced Thompson to two years in prison for two counts of attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity.
An additional year was added for two counts of attempting to cause a child to watch a sexual act, and eight months for possessing indecent images of children.
All sentences were suspended, allowing Thompson to leave the court without immediate imprisonment.
However, he was ordered to undergo rehabilitation and therapy, and he will be subject to a sexual harm prevention order for ten years.
In closing, Judge Tremberg issued a stern warning to Thompson, stating, “You have been given the opportunity to straighten your life out but if you carry on like this you will go to prison, ill health or not.
This is your one shot and if you don’t take the opportunity then you only have yourself to blame.” The court’s decision underscores the importance of accountability and the potential consequences of such heinous crimes, even when a sentence is suspended, emphasizing that the offender’s future conduct remains under scrutiny.
