WALTER MOSS FROM TRIMLEY ST MARY ESCAPES JAIL AFTER DOWNLOAD OF CHILD ABUSE IMAGES IN IPSWICH

In October 2013, a serious case involving Walter Moss, a 67-year-old resident of Trimley St Mary, unfolded in Ipswich. Moss was found to have downloaded hundreds of indecent images depicting children, a revelation that prompted a detailed police investigation and subsequent court proceedings.

Authorities seized computer equipment from Moss’s home after they were alerted to his activities, which included the distribution of three indecent images of children. The police examination of his devices uncovered a disturbing collection of approximately 1,800 indecent images of minors. Among these, some were duplicates, but notably, over 300 images fell into the most severe categories of child pornography, indicating the explicit and illegal nature of his collection.

During the court hearing at Ipswich Crown Court, Moss pleaded guilty to multiple charges. These included six counts of making indecent images of children, one count of possessing indecent images, one count of distributing such images, and three counts of possessing extreme pornographic material. The prosecution, led by Michael Crimp, detailed the extent of the material found and emphasized the seriousness of the offences.

Expert testimony was presented by Charles Fortt, a specialist in sexual crime. His assessment played a crucial role in the court’s decision. Judge John Holt, after considering the evidence, sentenced Moss to 12 months in prison, but the sentence was suspended for two years. Additionally, Moss was ordered to participate in an internet sex offenders’ treatment program, a measure aimed at addressing his behavior and preventing future offences.

Furthermore, the court imposed a sexual offences prevention order on Moss, requiring him to adhere to specific restrictions and monitoring. He was also mandated to register as a sex offender and was ordered to pay costs of £200 along with a victim surcharge of £100. The judge clarified that, based on the evidence from Mr. Fortt, Moss was classified as a “voyeur” rather than a paedophile, and the court was satisfied that he did not pose a significant risk of engaging in contact offences with children in the future.

Prosecutor Michael Crimp confirmed that Moss had fully admitted his involvement to police authorities, demonstrating a level of remorse. Defense lawyer Hugh Rowland expressed that Moss was deeply ashamed of his actions and hoped to rebuild his life following the court’s sentencing. The expert assessment by Mr. Fortt supported this view, indicating that Moss’s risk of committing contact offences was minimal, and emphasizing his categorization as a voyeur rather than a paedophile, which influenced the court’s leniency in sentencing.