A PAEDOPHILE jailed for downloading more than 180,000 indecent images of children searched the same videos of girls being raped after being released from prison for similar offences
Michael John, 56, of Westmoor Close, Newport, looked for the clips of girls aged between around three and eight being abused by their fathers, a court heard.
He was jailed for a year in 2011 after admitting having 183,049 indecent images including 1,680 extreme level five photos and videos.
But John went back on the internet to look for the same clips, Cardiff Crown Court heard.
John denied breaching a sexual offences prevention order restricting his internet use but changed his plea to guilty in the middle of a trial.
Judge Christopher Clee QC told John he should expect a prison sentence.
The Argus reported in February 2011 how John was jailed for a year after admitting 36 counts of making indecent images of children and three of possessing indecent images of children.
Police had seized his computer with two hard drives, child porn on DVDs, two cameras and printed images in 2010.
His legal representative Robin Shellard said at the time he had “spiralled down into a lonely, depressed and obsessive person” but stressed there was no evidence he distributed the images.
He appeared at Cardiff Crown Court to admit five new counts of making indecent images of children, one of possessing indecent images of children and a count of breaching a sexual offences restriction order.
Defence barrister, Harry Baker said his client wanted to apologise to the court and the jury for wasting their time.
Judge Clee bailed him with a condition of residence and adjourned the case to a date to be fixed for reports to be produced.
Feb 2011
Newport man had more than 180,000 child porn images
A LONELY, isolated Newport man who was obsessed with the internet downloaded more than 180,000 indecent images of children, a court heard.
Michael David John, 53, of Fisher Close, Ringland, appeared in Newport Crown Court for sentencing, having previously admitted 36 counts of making indecent images of children and three counts of possessing indecent images of children. The offences took place between February 2006 and January 2010.
Prosecutor David Webster said police raided John’s home on January 21, 2010, where they found a “very substantial quantity” of child pornography on DVDs, a computer with two hard drives, two cameras, as well as printed images.
Mr Webster said John pleaded guilty on the basis that he was in possession of a total of 183,049 indecent images, made up of 1,680 level five images – the worst level -, 28,293 level four images, 22,898 level three, 4,318 level two and 125,860 level one images. He said among the level five images were 72 videos.
The court heard that when John was arrested he told officers he would have to “face up” to what he had done, but made no comment during interview.
Representing John, Robin Shellard said the images were for personal use and there was no evidence John distributed any of the images.
Mr Shellard said John had “spiralled down into a lonely, depressed and obsessive person” over the past five years.
He said John did not have a job or a partner and spent too much time on the internet which became an obsession.
Mr Shellard said John’s use of the internet rose out of his enthusiasm for genealogy, a field in which he was regarded as a local expert.
He said: “What he has found very difficult is his inability to square the morality of the person he thinks he is with the immorality of what he has done.”
Judge David Morris said: “It has to be understood that those who obtain these images over the internet, albeit purely for their own sexual gratification in private, are nonetheless contributing to the worldwide sexual abuse of children.
“If there was not a market with such as you being keen to obtain these images there would be no abuse of children on a commercial scale for profit as there is.”
John was sentenced to 12-months in prison and order to register as a sex offender for 10 years. Judge Morris also made John the subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, restricting his use of the internet, and ordered that another hearing should be listed for legal arguments over a deprivation order relating to items seized during the raid.
