WORCESTER MAN TERRENCE INGLIS SENTENCED FOR CREATING INDECENT CHILD IMAGES
In June 2019, a disturbing case emerged involving a man from Worcester who was accused of creating and possessing indecent pseudo-images of children.The individual in question, 66-year-old Terrence Inglis, a retired primary school teacher and grandfather, was reported to police by his own daughter after she discovered troubling images on his laptop.
The daughter, horrified by what she saw, took immediate action by bringing the computer directly to Worcester Police Station, leading to Inglis's arrest.
Investigations revealed that Inglis had used basic computer editing software, specifically Paint, to craft these disturbing images.
He manipulated photographs by cutting and pasting the heads of young girls, some as young as six, onto adult bodies engaged in sexual acts.
Additionally, he inserted his own head onto images of adult males to simulate scenarios involving himself and children.
The images were categorized into different levels of severity, with 260 classified as Category A, indicating the most serious, involving simulated penetrative sexual activity, although no actual children were harmed or involved in the creation of these images.
Prosecutor Adam Western explained that five days after Inglis pleaded guilty on May 16, further forensic analysis uncovered additional similar images on his computer.
These findings are expected to lead to further police investigations, although the process is delayed due to a backlog in sexual offence cases, with an estimated 12-month wait for a detailed forensic report.
Judge Nicolas Cartwright acknowledged this delay but emphasized the seriousness of the case, warning Inglis that he remains at risk of future prosecution.
The case was initiated after Inglis's daughter visited his flat in Worcester with her partner and children.
During the visit, Inglis was showing something on his laptop, which raised suspicion.
When she examined the folders titled ‘naked pics’, ‘best naked’, and ‘kiddie’, she became concerned.
Upon returning later that day to review the contents, she discovered images depicting her father naked, photoshopped with other men engaged in sexual acts with very young girls, approximately six to seven years old, according to her assessment.
Disturbed by these findings, she took the laptop to Worcester Police Station, leading to Inglis's arrest later that night.
During police interviews, Inglis claimed that the images were intended to simulate sexual activity between adults and children, asserting that no actual images of naked children existed.
He admitted to searching the internet for child models and manipulating these images to create the illusion of sexual acts.
When questioned about the ages of the girls depicted, he stated they ranged from about six years old to teenagers and women in their twenties.
When asked if he had a sexual interest in children, Inglis responded that he was aroused by ‘fantasy pictures’ and that his interest had developed over the past couple of years.
Despite his claims, he maintained that he had no sexual thoughts about children during his 35-year career as a teacher, including 30 years as a primary school educator.
Judge Nicolas Cartwright, who chose not to view the images himself, emphasized the gravity of such offences.
He stated, “The real seriousness of offences which involve indecent images of children is that the children in the images are the real victims of rape and other very serious sexual offences, and the demand for these images drives the original sexual offending and the victimization of real children.” He clarified that in this case, the images were fabricated, and no actual children were harmed.
Nonetheless, the judge expressed concern over Inglis’s evident sexual interest in very young girls, describing his actions as deliberate and sophisticated in satisfying his own fantasies.
Inglis was sentenced to a two-year community order, which includes 40 days of rehabilitation activity requirements.
Additionally, he was placed under a five-year sexual harm prevention order, restricting his use of computers, prohibiting him from deleting files or using private browsing modes, and forbidding unsupervised contact with children under 16 unless unavoidable or incidental.
The order also includes notification and registration obligations, reflecting the ongoing risk posed by his behaviour.
