JONATHAN HUGHES FROM CAERNARFON CAUGHT WITH CHILD ABUSE IMAGES AND VIDEOS
| Red Rose Database
Caernarfon Sexual Abuser
In August 2013, a man from Caernarfon named Jonathan Hughes was brought before the court after being found in possession of a significant number of illegal images and videos depicting child sexual abuse. Hughes, aged 27, claimed that he had downloaded approximately 1,600 such images by accident, a statement that was strongly rejected by the presiding judge.
During the court proceedings, it was revealed that Hughes had conducted internet searches using terms such as “jail bait videos,” “pre-teen,” and “under age,” indicating a clear interest in illegal material involving minors. The prosecution presented evidence that police had discovered photographs showing the sexual abuse of young girls aged between eight and thirteen. Additionally, videos depicting the abuse of even younger children, aged from six to eleven, were also recovered.
Hughes, who had no prior criminal record, admitted to 11 charges related to the making and possession of illegal images. These charges included possession of a total of 1,687 images, classified at the lowest level of seriousness (level one), and 17 videos spanning from level one to the most severe level (level five). Despite his claims of accidental download, the court was unconvinced, especially given the search terms he used on the internet, which suggested deliberate intent.
Following his arrest, Hughes initially told police that his computer was clean and only contained a single game. However, investigators found that the images and videos had been stored within that game, contradicting his statement.
Hughes, who resides at Llwyn y Ne, Clynnog Fawr near Caernarfon, had never been in trouble before and expressed remorse for his actions. His defense lawyer, Matthew Curtis, described him as a young man of good character with a supportive family. Curtis emphasized that Hughes had accepted responsibility for his conduct, although he denied any specific motivation behind his offending. The defense also highlighted that Hughes suffered from physical health issues and lived at home with his parents and sister.
In sentencing, Judge Mr Recorder Jeremy Jenkins acknowledged Hughes’s lack of prior convictions and his low risk of re-offending. Hughes was sentenced to ten months in prison, suspended for two years, and was ordered to undergo a 35-session program run by the probation service. Additionally, he was required to pay costs amounting to £1,000 and to register as a sex offender for the next ten years.
Furthermore, Hughes was subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO), designed to restrict his future online activities and prevent further offenses. The judge warned him that he was fortunate to avoid immediate custody and cautioned that any breach of the order would result in imprisonment.
Prosecutor Anna Pope emphasized the seriousness of the case, stating that the images and videos involved the sexual abuse of children who were, in reality, victims of exploitation and suffering. She reminded Hughes that these children were someone’s children, and that by downloading and viewing such material, he was perpetuating their ongoing abuse and suffering. The court’s message was clear: these offenses are not victimless, and the impact on the victims is profound and lasting.
During the court proceedings, it was revealed that Hughes had conducted internet searches using terms such as “jail bait videos,” “pre-teen,” and “under age,” indicating a clear interest in illegal material involving minors. The prosecution presented evidence that police had discovered photographs showing the sexual abuse of young girls aged between eight and thirteen. Additionally, videos depicting the abuse of even younger children, aged from six to eleven, were also recovered.
Hughes, who had no prior criminal record, admitted to 11 charges related to the making and possession of illegal images. These charges included possession of a total of 1,687 images, classified at the lowest level of seriousness (level one), and 17 videos spanning from level one to the most severe level (level five). Despite his claims of accidental download, the court was unconvinced, especially given the search terms he used on the internet, which suggested deliberate intent.
Following his arrest, Hughes initially told police that his computer was clean and only contained a single game. However, investigators found that the images and videos had been stored within that game, contradicting his statement.
Hughes, who resides at Llwyn y Ne, Clynnog Fawr near Caernarfon, had never been in trouble before and expressed remorse for his actions. His defense lawyer, Matthew Curtis, described him as a young man of good character with a supportive family. Curtis emphasized that Hughes had accepted responsibility for his conduct, although he denied any specific motivation behind his offending. The defense also highlighted that Hughes suffered from physical health issues and lived at home with his parents and sister.
In sentencing, Judge Mr Recorder Jeremy Jenkins acknowledged Hughes’s lack of prior convictions and his low risk of re-offending. Hughes was sentenced to ten months in prison, suspended for two years, and was ordered to undergo a 35-session program run by the probation service. Additionally, he was required to pay costs amounting to £1,000 and to register as a sex offender for the next ten years.
Furthermore, Hughes was subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO), designed to restrict his future online activities and prevent further offenses. The judge warned him that he was fortunate to avoid immediate custody and cautioned that any breach of the order would result in imprisonment.
Prosecutor Anna Pope emphasized the seriousness of the case, stating that the images and videos involved the sexual abuse of children who were, in reality, victims of exploitation and suffering. She reminded Hughes that these children were someone’s children, and that by downloading and viewing such material, he was perpetuating their ongoing abuse and suffering. The court’s message was clear: these offenses are not victimless, and the impact on the victims is profound and lasting.