PERTH PAEDOPHILE STEVEN PARAMORE SENTENCED FOR INDECENT IMAGES IN SHOCKING CASE
In a case that has sent shockwaves through the Perth community, Steven Paramore, a 50-year-old resident of Victoria Street, has been sentenced to serve time behind bars for possessing indecent images of children.The court proceedings revealed a disturbing pattern of offending and a troubling lack of remorse from the accused, raising serious concerns about public safety and the potential risk he poses to children.
Paramore’s criminal history is extensive, with previous convictions related to offenses against young males.
He has openly admitted in the past that he presents a significant danger to children, and his actions continue to reinforce these fears.
During the recent hearing at Perth Sheriff Court, Sheriff Robert McCreadie emphasized that the defendant’s continued indifference to his crimes left the court with no choice but to impose a custodial sentence.
As a result, Paramore was sentenced to 13½ months in prison.
Additionally, the sheriff ordered that upon his release, he would be subject to an 'extended sentence,' which entails close supervision to prevent any further offending.
The court also mandated that he be registered as a sex offender for the next seven years, a measure designed to monitor his activities and protect the community.
It was disclosed during the hearing that Paramore suffers from multiple sclerosis, a condition that complicates his case but does not diminish the severity of his crimes.
The court was informed that he had been classified as a high-risk offender, particularly because of his history and the nature of his offenses.
Notably, he was prohibited from being alone with children after admitting to an incident involving a young person in Perth in 2001.
His criminal record includes a conviction from Manchester Crown Court, where he was jailed for 12 months in 2002 on charges of indecent assault and gross indecency.
Despite these convictions, he remained under police supervision, with regular risk assessments conducted to monitor his behavior.
On May 25 of the previous year, police contacted Paramore to inform him of an upcoming visit, during which they examined his computer.
Although he believed he had successfully concealed his activities, investigators discovered a single image that prompted a more thorough search.
The subsequent seizure and analysis of his computer and memory stick uncovered a total of 92 images depicting children aged between five and 16.
These images were classified at the lower end of the severity scale, with 73 rated as level one and 19 as level two, indicating less severe content but still highly concerning.
Paramore’s initial court appearance on September 8 involved charges that he had downloaded these images over an eight-year period, from May 22, 2002, to May 26, 2010.
After being released on bail, he quickly violated a court order that prohibited him from accessing the internet, leading to his re-arrest within hours.
Police investigations revealed that he had acquired a new computer immediately after court proceedings, further demonstrating his disregard for legal restrictions.
During the sentencing hearing, social workers expressed grave concerns about Paramore’s attitude, describing him as unrepentant and highly likely to reoffend.
A report indicated a 'very high risk' of future convictions, citing his own words—'Why not?'—when questioned about his possession of the images.
The social workers also noted that he showed little remorse, merely lamenting that he could not continue his illicit activities undetected.
When asked if he viewed children as victims, he responded, 'No, but I know I should.' Sheriff McCreadie highlighted the troubling aspects of the case, including the small number of images and their relatively low severity level, which might typically warrant a community disposal.
However, given Paramore’s extensive criminal record, repeated breaches of bail, and apparent lack of remorse, the court determined that a custodial sentence was justified to protect the public and prevent further harm.
