PAUL WARD FROM LEICESTER JAILED FOR CHILD INDECENCY IMAGES
In a serious case that has shocked the community of Leicester, Paul Vincent Ward, aged 48, has been sentenced to 12 months in prison after admitting to multiple charges related to the possession and download of indecent images of children.The offences, which spanned over a period of nearly three years, involved the illegal acquisition of a total of 28 images depicting young boys, including infants, in various states of abuse.
Ward was apprehended at his residence on Braunstone Lane, Leicester, where authorities seized his computer equipment as part of their investigation.
The prosecution, led by Alan Murphy, revealed that the illegal images were accessed between January 2010 and December 2012.
The images were categorized into different levels of severity, with seven images classified at level one, nine at level three, and twelve at level four, the latter being the most serious category.
During the court proceedings at Leicester Crown Court, Mr.
Murphy highlighted that there was evidence indicating Ward’s use of a file-sharing program in the month prior to his arrest.
This program was subsequently uninstalled on November 23, suggesting an attempt to conceal his activities.
Additionally, investigators found that Ward’s computer contained cleaning software capable of erasing all traces of the indecent material, raising concerns about his efforts to hide his actions.
Further disturbing evidence emerged from a Skype conversation in which Ward discussed child abuse with another individual, adding to the gravity of his offending.
The court was shown images of a baby and a three-year-old being subjected to abuse, which Judge Philip Head described as 'disgusting.' The judge emphasized that these children are victims and pointed out that Ward’s consumption of such material fuels its production.
While the amount of material involved was not the largest compared to some offenders, the fact that it was accumulated over a sustained period was a significant factor in the sentencing.
Judge Head acknowledged that Ward had accepted full responsibility and had been forthcoming in the pre-sentence report.
He also noted that Ward is a carer for his vulnerable father, which added complexity to his case.
In mitigation, Ward’s legal representative argued for a non-custodial sentence, proposing that Ward undergo treatment to reduce the risk of reoffending.
However, the judge determined that the severity of the images and the nature of the offences warranted immediate custody.
As part of his sentence, Ward was placed under a sexual offences prevention order, which will allow authorities to monitor his future computer use.
Additionally, he will be required to register as a sex offender for the next ten years, ensuring ongoing oversight of his activities.
