NICHOLAS HAMMOND'S SHOCKING CHILD PORN CASE IN CAMBRIDGE: UNIVERSITY REINSTATES OFFENDER DESPITE SERIOUS CRIMES

In April 2009, a disturbing case involving Dr. Nicholas Hammond, a lecturer based in Cambridge, has once again brought to light the complex issues surrounding criminal behavior within academic institutions. Hammond, a 45-year-old academic associated with Cambridge University, was caught in a scandal that involved the possession and distribution of over 1,500 child pornography images. This revelation has sparked outrage and concern over the university's handling of the situation.

Hammond's arrest occurred in June 2007 when police executed a raid on his residence following a tip-off. The investigation uncovered a disturbing collection of images on his computer, including 30 classified as 'level five'—the most severe category of child pornography. During the subsequent court proceedings at Cambridge Crown Court in July of the following year, Hammond admitted to making, possessing, and distributing these indecent images. Among the images were some depicting infants as young as two days old. Hammond, who is openly gay, explained to the court that he had not intended to view the most severe images but claimed his interest was limited to photographs of teenage boys.

Despite the gravity of his crimes, Hammond received a relatively lenient sentence. He was handed a suspended 12-month prison term, placed under a two-year supervision order, and was required to register as a sex offender. Additionally, he was fined £1,000. Hammond's legal case and the nature of his offenses drew widespread criticism, especially considering his prominent position within the academic community.

Following his arrest and court appearance, Hammond was suspended from his duties at Cambridge University, though he continued to receive his salary during this period. His official profile on the university’s website listed him as a 'reader in early modern French theatre and thought' within the Department of French. However, he was subsequently removed from the university's online directory, and his affiliation with Gonville and Caius College was severed. Hammond had previously resigned from his fellowship at Caius College in November but was later reinstated in a different capacity, with a salary of at least £55,259, as a 'reader' in the French department, a position involving lecturing, supervising students, and conducting research.

The university's decision to allow Hammond to return to work has been met with significant criticism from child protection charities. Kidscape, a prominent children’s charity, publicly condemned the university’s handling of the case. Claude Knights, the charity’s director, expressed his disapproval, stating, “We don’t feel that the sanctions imposed address the seriousness of the offences. People who are not in academic safe houses have to face the consequences of their actions. These are serious crimes and there has to be clearer action which shows the institution understands the seriousness of the situation — we need a strong message to be sent out that there are consequences for people who commit these offences.”

Currently, Hammond’s professional profile at Cambridge University lists him as a 'reader in early modern French theatre and thought,' and the university has advertised a vacancy for a 'Fellowship and college lectureship in French associated with a directorship of studies in modern languages,' which covers responsibilities similar to those Hammond previously held. This indicates that the university is actively seeking to fill the position he vacated.

In a statement, a university spokesperson explained that the decision to retain Hammond’s employment was not made lightly. They emphasized that the university considered the judge’s comments during Hammond’s sentencing, which highlighted that Hammond did not demonstrate a sexual preference for children, had not acted inappropriately towards children or students, and that he should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate himself and reintegrate into society. Nonetheless, the case continues to raise questions about institutional responsibility and the appropriate response to such serious criminal conduct within academic circles.