ROBERT KING FROM LANGFORD BUDVILLE ESCAPES JAIL AFTER CHILD ABUSE IMAGE SCANDAL IN TAUNTON
| Red Rose Database
Langford Budville Rapist
In April 2017, a disturbing case unfolded at Taunton Crown Court involving Robert King, a 30-year-old resident of Courtlands, Langford Budville, near Wellington. The court heard harrowing details about the extent of his possession of illegal and highly disturbing images depicting child abuse.
During the proceedings, King was visibly emotional, sobbing as the judge detailed the horrific nature of the images he had been viewing. The judge described the material as including photographs of very young children, estimated to be around three or four years old, who were crying in pain and appearing terrified as they were subjected to sexual assault by adult men. The gravity of these images was emphasized by the judge, Robert Linford, who made it clear that such material represented the most heinous forms of child exploitation.
Judge Linford explicitly stated, “That is what you’ve been viewing. That’s what you made other people view when they examined your computer,” underscoring the disturbing reality of the content King had stored and possibly shared. The court was informed that police, acting on a tip-off, had visited King’s residence and initially found that he denied possessing any illegal material. However, subsequent investigations revealed a far more sinister picture.
Officers seized three devices from King’s home—one laptop and two computers—and discovered a significant collection of child abuse images. The material included 49 Category A images, which are classified as the most severe, along with nine movies. Additionally, there were 261 Category B images and a staggering 2,967 Category C images, as well as two movies. The police also uncovered extreme pornography and pseudo-photographs of children, further illustrating the disturbing nature of his online activity.
Further examination of King’s internet search history revealed that he had been actively seeking out such material online, indicating premeditation and intent. The prosecutor, William Hunter, highlighted the disturbing details, noting that some of the children depicted appeared to be very young, with some estimated to be as young as three or four years old, and visibly distressed in the images.
Despite the severity of the evidence, Judge Linford stated that he was not inclined to send King to prison. As King broke down in tears in the dock, the judge acknowledged his guilty plea and efforts to seek help. “You pleaded guilty as early as you could and you have sought help for your actions,” the judge said. He emphasized that possessing such images is not a victimless crime, as each photograph represents a child who has been harmed. The judge also pointed out the burden placed on police officers who must review such distressing material.
He warned King that if he reoffended by accessing such material again, he would face a lengthy prison sentence. Instead of jail, King was sentenced to a three-year community order, which includes mandatory participation in the Thames Valley Sex Offender Programme. This program aims to explore and address the underlying thoughts, feelings, and beliefs associated with internet-based sex offending. Additionally, King was subjected to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, designed to restrict his access to potentially harmful material.
Furthermore, he was ordered to complete 150 hours of unpaid work, participate in 45 days of rehabilitation activities, and pay costs amounting to £400. The court’s decision reflects a focus on rehabilitation and monitoring, rather than incarceration, but with clear warnings about the consequences of future offenses.
During the proceedings, King was visibly emotional, sobbing as the judge detailed the horrific nature of the images he had been viewing. The judge described the material as including photographs of very young children, estimated to be around three or four years old, who were crying in pain and appearing terrified as they were subjected to sexual assault by adult men. The gravity of these images was emphasized by the judge, Robert Linford, who made it clear that such material represented the most heinous forms of child exploitation.
Judge Linford explicitly stated, “That is what you’ve been viewing. That’s what you made other people view when they examined your computer,” underscoring the disturbing reality of the content King had stored and possibly shared. The court was informed that police, acting on a tip-off, had visited King’s residence and initially found that he denied possessing any illegal material. However, subsequent investigations revealed a far more sinister picture.
Officers seized three devices from King’s home—one laptop and two computers—and discovered a significant collection of child abuse images. The material included 49 Category A images, which are classified as the most severe, along with nine movies. Additionally, there were 261 Category B images and a staggering 2,967 Category C images, as well as two movies. The police also uncovered extreme pornography and pseudo-photographs of children, further illustrating the disturbing nature of his online activity.
Further examination of King’s internet search history revealed that he had been actively seeking out such material online, indicating premeditation and intent. The prosecutor, William Hunter, highlighted the disturbing details, noting that some of the children depicted appeared to be very young, with some estimated to be as young as three or four years old, and visibly distressed in the images.
Despite the severity of the evidence, Judge Linford stated that he was not inclined to send King to prison. As King broke down in tears in the dock, the judge acknowledged his guilty plea and efforts to seek help. “You pleaded guilty as early as you could and you have sought help for your actions,” the judge said. He emphasized that possessing such images is not a victimless crime, as each photograph represents a child who has been harmed. The judge also pointed out the burden placed on police officers who must review such distressing material.
He warned King that if he reoffended by accessing such material again, he would face a lengthy prison sentence. Instead of jail, King was sentenced to a three-year community order, which includes mandatory participation in the Thames Valley Sex Offender Programme. This program aims to explore and address the underlying thoughts, feelings, and beliefs associated with internet-based sex offending. Additionally, King was subjected to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, designed to restrict his access to potentially harmful material.
Furthermore, he was ordered to complete 150 hours of unpaid work, participate in 45 days of rehabilitation activities, and pay costs amounting to £400. The court’s decision reflects a focus on rehabilitation and monitoring, rather than incarceration, but with clear warnings about the consequences of future offenses.