ACCREDITED SEX OFFENDER LEON COLEMAN FROM ACCRINGTON SENTENCED AFTER VILE CHILD ABUSE IMAGES AND VOYEURISM CASE

In March 2014, a disturbing case emerged involving Leon Coleman, a resident of Lime Street in Accrington, who was found to possess and view highly disturbing images of child abuse. The case was brought to light after police executed a search warrant at his home, uncovering a total of 220 indecent images of children stored across two computers. Among these, 100 images were classified at the most severe levels, specifically levels three, four, and five, with level five representing the most serious category of child exploitation material.

Further investigations revealed that Coleman, aged 29 and an engineer by profession, had not previously been involved in any criminal activity. However, his actions were deemed profoundly disturbing and unacceptable by the court. It was also revealed that Coleman had engaged in voyeuristic behavior, spying on and secretly filming two women as they undressed. These acts of voyeurism added to the gravity of his offenses and highlighted a pattern of predatory behavior.

During the court proceedings at Burnley Crown Court, Coleman admitted to charges of voyeurism and possession of an indecent image of a child. The prosecution, led by Mark Lamberty, detailed the extent of the evidence, emphasizing the severity of the images found on his devices.

In his defense, Adrian Williams, representing Coleman, stated that his client had been entirely honest with police during interviews and expressed genuine remorse for his actions. Williams acknowledged that Coleman's behavior was deeply disturbing and rooted in his own sexual issues and gratification. He further noted that Coleman recognized he had a problem and was open to seeking help to address his perversions.

Despite the seriousness of the offenses, the judge, Beverley Lunt, opted against immediate imprisonment. Instead, she sentenced Coleman to a three-year community order, which included three years of supervision and participation in a sex offenders treatment program. Additionally, Coleman was placed under a five-year sexual offences prevention order, granting authorities the authority to monitor his internet activity closely. He was also ordered to register as a sex offender for five years.

Judge Lunt explained that while a custodial sentence could have been imposed, she believed that a community-based approach would serve as a better safeguard for society. She emphasized that the probation service would work with Coleman over the next three years to address his issues and prevent future offending. The judge warned Coleman that if he were to reoffend or be caught again, he would face imprisonment.

In conclusion, the court's decision aimed to balance punishment with rehabilitation, recognizing the importance of monitoring and addressing the underlying problems that led to Coleman's offending behavior. The case serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing threat posed by individuals with such disturbing tendencies, even those who have not previously been involved in criminal activity.