EDWARD WETHERILL FROM MIRFIELD RECEIVES COMMUNITY ORDER FOR CHILD INDECENT IMAGES
| Red Rose Database
Mirfield Child Sexual Abuser
In July 2016, a man from Mirfield was handed a community order after admitting to the possession of indecent images of children. Edward Wetherill, aged 47 and residing on Farrar Avenue in Mirfield, was taken into custody following a police raid on his residence. The authorities acted on intelligence suggesting that an IP address linked to Wetherill was being used to download illicit material.
During the operation, law enforcement officials seized an HP laptop from Wetherill’s home. A detailed examination of the device revealed a folder containing seven indecent images or videos. Prosecutor Heather Gilmore explained to Leeds Crown Court that among these, two were classified as Category C, indicating the lowest level of seriousness, while one was categorized as Category B. The remaining four files had not been assigned a specific category.
When questioned during police interviews, Wetherill admitted to deliberately downloading adult pornography. However, he denied actively seeking out images involving children. He claimed that he often downloaded material in bulk and would delete any inappropriate content immediately upon discovering it. Despite his denials, Wetherill acknowledged that he had created indecent photographs stored within the folder in question.
As a result of his actions, Wetherill was sentenced to a 12-month community order. Additionally, he was ordered to complete 100 hours of unpaid work and was required to pay £700 in court costs. The judge presiding over the case, Judge Geoffrey Marson QC, clarified that there was no evidence to suggest that any of the images or videos fell into the most serious Category A classification, which had been previously alleged. Instead, the material was classified as Category B and C.
Judge Marson addressed Wetherill directly, stating, “You will appreciate the children in these images are subjected to terrible degradation. Your case is quite unusual. There is no indication that you have a sexual attraction to children, something I am almost never prepared to accept. However, from the information in the pre-sentence report, there is some justification for this view.”
He further added, “I believe the risk of re-offending is very low indeed, and I do not consider you to be a danger to children. Therefore, the offence does not meet the threshold for custody.”
During the operation, law enforcement officials seized an HP laptop from Wetherill’s home. A detailed examination of the device revealed a folder containing seven indecent images or videos. Prosecutor Heather Gilmore explained to Leeds Crown Court that among these, two were classified as Category C, indicating the lowest level of seriousness, while one was categorized as Category B. The remaining four files had not been assigned a specific category.
When questioned during police interviews, Wetherill admitted to deliberately downloading adult pornography. However, he denied actively seeking out images involving children. He claimed that he often downloaded material in bulk and would delete any inappropriate content immediately upon discovering it. Despite his denials, Wetherill acknowledged that he had created indecent photographs stored within the folder in question.
As a result of his actions, Wetherill was sentenced to a 12-month community order. Additionally, he was ordered to complete 100 hours of unpaid work and was required to pay £700 in court costs. The judge presiding over the case, Judge Geoffrey Marson QC, clarified that there was no evidence to suggest that any of the images or videos fell into the most serious Category A classification, which had been previously alleged. Instead, the material was classified as Category B and C.
Judge Marson addressed Wetherill directly, stating, “You will appreciate the children in these images are subjected to terrible degradation. Your case is quite unusual. There is no indication that you have a sexual attraction to children, something I am almost never prepared to accept. However, from the information in the pre-sentence report, there is some justification for this view.”
He further added, “I believe the risk of re-offending is very low indeed, and I do not consider you to be a danger to children. Therefore, the offence does not meet the threshold for custody.”