SCARBOROUGH CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDER DAVID ULLIOTT ESCAPES IMMEDIATE JAIL SENTENCE IN YORK COURT

In October 2012, a disturbing case involving a deaf pensioner from Scarborough, David Ulliott, unfolded in York Crown Court, revealing the troubling extent of his possession of child exploitation material. Ulliott, aged 67 and residing on New Park Crescent in Scarborough, was found to have accumulated a total of 464 indecent photographs of children along with 19 video clips, predominantly featuring young boys and teenagers. These illicit images came to light after Ulliott requested assistance in repairing his computer, which led to the discovery of the disturbing content stored within his digital files.

Despite the severity and depraved nature of the images, which experts described as among the most serious and repulsive, Judge Stephen Ashurst, the Recorder of York, chose to exercise compassion during sentencing. Recognizing Ulliott’s ongoing struggles with deafness and the difficulties it caused him, the judge decided to suspend the prison sentence rather than impose immediate custody. This decision was framed as an act of mercy, considering the defendant’s personal circumstances.

Ulliott, a former baker, appeared before the court after admitting to 16 charges of making indecent photographs of children and two charges of possessing such images. Prosecutor Alan Mitcheson clarified that although there was some indication Ulliott had discussed the images with others, there was no evidence to suggest he had distributed or shared them. During police interviews, Ulliott admitted to being “stupid” and revealed that he had deleted some images after being shocked by their content.

Mitigating the case, Taryn Turner, representing Ulliott, explained that her client had been forced to retire early in his 50s and, due to his profound deafness from birth, had become increasingly isolated from society. She emphasized that Ulliott relied heavily on his computer to maintain contact with family and friends, and that his loneliness and limited social interaction had contributed to his offending behavior. Turner also noted that Ulliott’s daughter had moved back into his home to care for him since the offences had come to light.

Furthermore, Turner highlighted that her client was deeply concerned about the impact a prison sentence might have on his son, who suffers from mental health issues. She also mentioned that Ulliott had previously accessed legal adult pornography but had been advised to cease this activity due to the risk of inadvertently accessing more sinister material. The last two years had been particularly harrowing for Ulliott and his family, especially since police first questioned him in December 2010. The delay in bringing the case to court was attributed to the heavy caseload faced by North Yorkshire Police, which delayed forensic examinations of his computer.

Judge Ashurst described the video clips found on Ulli Elliott’s computer as “extremely depraved” and expressed concern about the disconnect some offenders have between viewing child pornography and actual child abuse. He stated, “Unhappily I believe you are one of those men who simply doesn’t see the link between downloading child pornography and child abuse, or, if they do, are prepared to turn a blind eye to it.” The judge emphasized that viewing such images perpetuates the abuse of vulnerable children.

Despite the gravity of the offences, the judge decided to suspend Ulliott’s prison sentence, ordering him to register as a sex offender for seven years and placing him under an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order to restrict his access to computers. Ulliott was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for two years, and was also placed under 12 months of supervision, during which he will participate in a specially adapted program for the deaf aimed at safeguarding both himself and others in the future. Additionally, he was ordered to pay £250 in prosecution costs. Ulliott is now automatically barred from working with children, reflecting the serious nature of his crimes and the measures taken to prevent future offending.