RICHARD LOVE FROM CANTERBURY SENTENCED FOR INDECENT IMAGES OF CHILDREN

In July 2009, a serious case involving a man from Canterbury, Richard Love, came to light when he was found to have committed offenses related to the possession and creation of indecent images of children. The case was brought before Canterbury Crown Court, where Love, aged 21 and residing on Warwick Road, faced charges that carried significant legal consequences.

Love's arrest was triggered by an incident in July 2007, when he returned a laptop to Curry’s, a well-known electronics retailer. The company, suspecting inappropriate content, contacted law enforcement authorities. Upon investigation, police examined another laptop that Love had purchased, which revealed additional indecent images. The material included eight video clips classified at levels one to three, indicating varying degrees of severity, as well as two still images at level one. These images were deemed to be of a disturbing nature involving children.

During the court proceedings, Love admitted to two counts of making indecent photographs of children. The court heard that his actions involved exploring the internet for adult pornography, and he claimed that if any child images appeared, they had been downloaded unintentionally. The prosecution, led by Roy Brown, emphasized the seriousness of the offense, highlighting the disturbing content found on Love’s devices.

In sentencing, Judge Adele Williams opted against imprisonment, citing her belief that Love was misguided and could be rehabilitated. She described his conduct as 'disgusting' but expressed hope that he could be helped to move past this chapter of his life. As part of his punishment, Love was given a three-year community order, which includes a requirement to participate in a sex offender treatment program. Additionally, he was ordered to pay costs amounting to £150.

Furthermore, Love was placed on the sex offender register and subject to a sex offence prevention order for five years. He was also explicitly banned from working with children, reflecting the court’s concern for public safety. Philip Rowley, representing Love, requested the court to consider the pre-sentence report, emphasizing that Love had shown remorse and had accepted guidance. The judge acknowledged Love’s age and lack of sophistication as mitigating factors, but reaffirmed the gravity of his actions and the need for ongoing supervision and treatment.