STANTON HUGHES CORRINGHAM CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SCANDAL: 188,000 IMAGES LEAD TO JAIL SENTENCE
| Red Rose Database
Corringham Sexual Abuser
In a case that has shocked the community of Corringham, Stanton Hughes, a 63-year-old former Scout leader, has been sentenced to 16 months in prison after authorities uncovered an extensive collection of child pornography on his personal computers. The investigation was triggered when police in Croatia targeted an international child porn website, which led to a series of raids and arrests across multiple countries.
On August 6, 2009, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Hughes’s residence on Bellemaine Avenue in Corringham. The police action was part of a broader operation aimed at dismantling online child exploitation networks. During the raid, officers seized two of Hughes’s computers, along with photographic prints, and identified his connection to the illegal material. The investigation revealed that Hughes’s computer IP address was among several that had accessed and downloaded images from the Croatian website, which contained numerous sexually explicit images and videos involving minors.
The material found on Hughes’s devices was classified as highly serious, with the majority of images falling into Levels 4 and 5 on the scale used by prosecutors to assess the severity of such content. It is important to note that Level 10 represents the most extreme form of child pornography, and Hughes’s collection was considered to be of significant gravity.
During the court proceedings, prosecutor Cyrus Stroff detailed the extent of the material, emphasizing the disturbing nature of the images. Hughes was questioned by police but chose to remain silent, responding only with the remark, “It’s not very good, is it?” when asked about the content.
Hughes’s legal representative, Marie-Elena Candillio, provided a defense that highlighted his personal circumstances. She explained that since being charged, Hughes, who is a father of two and a grandfather of four, had been ostracized by his family and friends. Candillio asserted that Hughes’s involvement with the images was unintentional, claiming that he was interested in naturism and had come across the images while browsing naturist websites. She stated, “Mr Hughes is interested in naturism and he came across the images as a result of looking at naturist sites. Although he accepts he had the images on the computer and at his home, he doesn’t recall seeing all of them. He is deeply ashamed and disgusted by what he did and the shame he has brought on others.”
Following the discovery, Hughes resigned from his position at a construction firm, acknowledging the scandal’s impact on his reputation. At an earlier hearing, he admitted to seven counts of making indecent photographs of children and three counts of possessing child pornography.
Judge John Lodge, presiding over the case, sentenced Hughes to 16 months in prison, citing the sheer volume of images as a primary factor in his decision. In addition to imprisonment, Hughes was ordered to register as a sex offender for ten years and was subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. The order includes restrictions on his internet use, limiting him to work-related activities only, in an effort to prevent any future offenses.
This case underscores the ongoing efforts of law enforcement agencies to combat online child exploitation and highlights the severe consequences faced by those involved in such heinous crimes.
On August 6, 2009, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Hughes’s residence on Bellemaine Avenue in Corringham. The police action was part of a broader operation aimed at dismantling online child exploitation networks. During the raid, officers seized two of Hughes’s computers, along with photographic prints, and identified his connection to the illegal material. The investigation revealed that Hughes’s computer IP address was among several that had accessed and downloaded images from the Croatian website, which contained numerous sexually explicit images and videos involving minors.
The material found on Hughes’s devices was classified as highly serious, with the majority of images falling into Levels 4 and 5 on the scale used by prosecutors to assess the severity of such content. It is important to note that Level 10 represents the most extreme form of child pornography, and Hughes’s collection was considered to be of significant gravity.
During the court proceedings, prosecutor Cyrus Stroff detailed the extent of the material, emphasizing the disturbing nature of the images. Hughes was questioned by police but chose to remain silent, responding only with the remark, “It’s not very good, is it?” when asked about the content.
Hughes’s legal representative, Marie-Elena Candillio, provided a defense that highlighted his personal circumstances. She explained that since being charged, Hughes, who is a father of two and a grandfather of four, had been ostracized by his family and friends. Candillio asserted that Hughes’s involvement with the images was unintentional, claiming that he was interested in naturism and had come across the images while browsing naturist websites. She stated, “Mr Hughes is interested in naturism and he came across the images as a result of looking at naturist sites. Although he accepts he had the images on the computer and at his home, he doesn’t recall seeing all of them. He is deeply ashamed and disgusted by what he did and the shame he has brought on others.”
Following the discovery, Hughes resigned from his position at a construction firm, acknowledging the scandal’s impact on his reputation. At an earlier hearing, he admitted to seven counts of making indecent photographs of children and three counts of possessing child pornography.
Judge John Lodge, presiding over the case, sentenced Hughes to 16 months in prison, citing the sheer volume of images as a primary factor in his decision. In addition to imprisonment, Hughes was ordered to register as a sex offender for ten years and was subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. The order includes restrictions on his internet use, limiting him to work-related activities only, in an effort to prevent any future offenses.
This case underscores the ongoing efforts of law enforcement agencies to combat online child exploitation and highlights the severe consequences faced by those involved in such heinous crimes.