STANLEY BRIDGE FROM HANLEY AND LEEDS CAUGHT WITH CHILD ABUSE IMAGES IN SHOCKING POLICE RAID
| Red Rose Database
Leeds Hanley Child Sexual Abuser
In a disturbing case that has shocked the local communities of Hanley and Leeds, Stanley Bridge, a 55-year-old man, was found to be in possession of indecent images of children after police executed a search warrant at his residence. The incident unfolded in September 2015, but the details have only recently come to light during court proceedings.
On the morning of September 2, 2015, officers from the police force arrived at Bridge's home located on Union Street in Hanley at approximately 8:20 am. The police action was part of an investigation into the possession and distribution of child abuse images. During the search, law enforcement officials seized Bridge’s laptop, which was later examined for illicit content.
The forensic analysis of the device revealed that Bridge had downloaded and accessed a total of nine indecent images depicting children being abused. These images were classified into different categories based on their severity: two images fell into Category A, which is considered the most serious, while two others were classified as Category B, and the remaining five as Category C. The investigation uncovered that Bridge had used search terms such as ‘teenage porn’ to locate these images.
Stanley Bridge, who was previously residing at Boundary Court on Union Street in Hanley but now lives in Parkfield Way, Seacroft, Leeds, pleaded guilty to three charges related to the creation and possession of indecent images of children. His case was brought before Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court, where he faced sentencing.
During the court hearing, the prosecution, represented by Ian Ball, outlined the details of the police raid and the evidence collected. The court was informed that although the images had been deleted from the computer, they were recoverable due to specific features of the device, indicating that Bridge had attempted to remove the material. Importantly, there was no evidence suggesting that Bridge had distributed these images to others, which was noted by the defense.
Paul Cliff, representing Bridge, argued that his client had led a constructive life and had no relevant prior convictions. He emphasized that the number of images was relatively low and that the images had been deleted at the time of investigation. Mr. Cliff also highlighted that Bridge demonstrated a good level of victim awareness and expressed significant embarrassment and remorse over his actions.
Judge Paul Glenn delivered the verdict and sentencing, opting for a community order rather than imprisonment. He sentenced Bridge to a three-year community order with supervision and mandated that he complete a community sex offenders’ treatment programme. The judge acknowledged that the images, although serious, were no longer accessible on the device and that Bridge’s actions did not involve ongoing distribution.
In his remarks, Judge Glenn stated, “None of the nine images found on your laptop were still accessible. The evidence aligns with your statement that you deleted the images after downloading them. These offences are serious because they contribute to the encouragement of child abuse.” He further added, “You are clearly embarrassed by these proceedings, and I hope you feel shame for your actions.”
Additionally, Bridge was placed on the sex offenders’ register for five years, and he was barred from engaging in activities involving children and vulnerable adults. The court also ordered him to pay costs amounting to £500. The judge concluded that a custodial sentence would not serve any meaningful purpose, given the circumstances, and that a community order was the most appropriate measure to protect the public and facilitate rehabilitation.
On the morning of September 2, 2015, officers from the police force arrived at Bridge's home located on Union Street in Hanley at approximately 8:20 am. The police action was part of an investigation into the possession and distribution of child abuse images. During the search, law enforcement officials seized Bridge’s laptop, which was later examined for illicit content.
The forensic analysis of the device revealed that Bridge had downloaded and accessed a total of nine indecent images depicting children being abused. These images were classified into different categories based on their severity: two images fell into Category A, which is considered the most serious, while two others were classified as Category B, and the remaining five as Category C. The investigation uncovered that Bridge had used search terms such as ‘teenage porn’ to locate these images.
Stanley Bridge, who was previously residing at Boundary Court on Union Street in Hanley but now lives in Parkfield Way, Seacroft, Leeds, pleaded guilty to three charges related to the creation and possession of indecent images of children. His case was brought before Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court, where he faced sentencing.
During the court hearing, the prosecution, represented by Ian Ball, outlined the details of the police raid and the evidence collected. The court was informed that although the images had been deleted from the computer, they were recoverable due to specific features of the device, indicating that Bridge had attempted to remove the material. Importantly, there was no evidence suggesting that Bridge had distributed these images to others, which was noted by the defense.
Paul Cliff, representing Bridge, argued that his client had led a constructive life and had no relevant prior convictions. He emphasized that the number of images was relatively low and that the images had been deleted at the time of investigation. Mr. Cliff also highlighted that Bridge demonstrated a good level of victim awareness and expressed significant embarrassment and remorse over his actions.
Judge Paul Glenn delivered the verdict and sentencing, opting for a community order rather than imprisonment. He sentenced Bridge to a three-year community order with supervision and mandated that he complete a community sex offenders’ treatment programme. The judge acknowledged that the images, although serious, were no longer accessible on the device and that Bridge’s actions did not involve ongoing distribution.
In his remarks, Judge Glenn stated, “None of the nine images found on your laptop were still accessible. The evidence aligns with your statement that you deleted the images after downloading them. These offences are serious because they contribute to the encouragement of child abuse.” He further added, “You are clearly embarrassed by these proceedings, and I hope you feel shame for your actions.”
Additionally, Bridge was placed on the sex offenders’ register for five years, and he was barred from engaging in activities involving children and vulnerable adults. The court also ordered him to pay costs amounting to £500. The judge concluded that a custodial sentence would not serve any meaningful purpose, given the circumstances, and that a community order was the most appropriate measure to protect the public and facilitate rehabilitation.