KEITH ISTEAD FROM PERSHORE SENTENCED FOR CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSES IN WORCESTER

In a case that has shocked the local community, Keith Istead, a resident of Bridge Street in Pershore, was brought before the court in Worcester to face serious charges related to the possession and creation of indecent images of children. The proceedings revealed disturbing details about Istead's actions, which included the production and storage of explicit photographs involving minors.

In February 2004, Istead pleaded guilty to three separate charges of making indecent photographs of children. The court was informed that these charges involved a total of 30 images, which ranged in severity from level one photographs—depicting nudity or erotic poses—to level four images that depicted sexual activity involving minors. This spectrum of images indicated a disturbing progression in the nature of the material he possessed.

Keith Istead, who is the managing director of the Worcester-based audio-visual company Present UK, appeared in court dressed in a smart suit. His appearance contrasted sharply with the gravity of the charges against him. The judge, the Honourable Judge McEvoy QC, expressed his shock upon viewing some of the images stored on Istead’s computer. The judge remarked that his initial intention was to impose a community rehabilitation order, but the graphic nature of the images caused him to reconsider.

“My intention was originally to impose a rehabilitation order but, when I saw these photos on your computer, I nearly changed my mind,” the judge stated. Despite the disturbing evidence, the judge acknowledged Istead’s age—63 years old—and remarked that this would lead to him being perceived as a “dirty old man,” which in itself was a form of punishment.

Ultimately, the court decided on a three-year community rehabilitation order, emphasizing the importance of monitoring and rehabilitating Istead rather than imposing immediate imprisonment. Additionally, Istead was ordered to register as a sex offender for five years and was required to pay court costs amounting to £900. During the proceedings, it was clarified that the charges of “making” child pornography involved not only downloading images but also printing and adding photographs to a database, which is considered a more serious offense.

This case underscores the ongoing concerns about the possession and distribution of child exploitation material and highlights the judicial system’s response to such heinous crimes, especially when they involve individuals from seemingly ordinary backgrounds.