A PAEDOPHILE living just metres away from a primary school got off on vile videos of babies being sexually abused.
Some of the 900-plus images and videos possessed by Terrence Bann featured vulnerable babies and toddlers crying in distress.
But the 64-year-old was allowed to walk free from court with rehabilitation and unpaid work as this was in the ‘public’s best interest’.
He appeared before Liverpool Crown Court to be sentenced this morning, Monday, on four charges of making indecent images of children and sole counts of possessing indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children.
Nardeen Nemat, prosecuting, told the court how on April 12 last year, police executed a search warrant at the defendant’s Orford home.
Officers attended the School Road property –only metres from St Margaret’s CofE Primary School and next to a burnt down former sex fetish dungeon – and seized Bann’s electronic devices.
These were sent for a forensic analysis, with experts finding that his HP laptop contained 902 indecent images and videos of children being sexually abused.
Of these, 383 were graded as category A – the most severe category involving child rape – while 284 were said to be category B and 235 were category C.
The court heard some of the depraved material involved vulnerable babies and toddlers being abused – while crying and visibly distressed.
It was also heard that more than 3,000 other images were discovered, but these were ‘not categorised by police’.
File names were indicative of child sexual abuse, while Bann used a cleaner software on the laptop, it was said.
There were also multiple instances of the defendant visiting websites indicative of sharing indecent images of children, but there was no evidence that he had indeed shared them.
Ms Nemat told the court that Bann was interviewed twice after being arrested.
In one he gave no comment answers to questions put to him, and in the other he ‘accepted responsibility and said he was sorry’.
Ms Nemat also revealed that the defendant has no previous convictions.
Mitigating, Paul Wood gave the court a letter from Bann’s wife and conceded that the case ‘clearly crosses the custody threshold’.
“The main nub of my submissions are if the case can be dealt with by way of a suspended sentence rather than immediate custody,” he said.
He described the images as ‘appalling quite frankly’, but commented that proceedings have had a ‘marked impact’ on his client, who is ‘remorseful, insightful and wants to be rehabilitated’.
Mr Wood highlighted Bann’s guilty pleas at the first opportunity, previous good character and the fact he is receiving ongoing, long-term treatment for his ‘poor health’.
“On the face of it, until this offending he was a man of positive good character, with adult children and a wife of 38 years,” he added.
“One can only imagine the fall out with his family over his repulsive behaviour.
“Rehabilitation is key and where the public interest best lies.”
Before sentencing, judge Garrett Byrne said: “Well Mr Bann, the images you were in possession of were quite large a collection, showing particularly young and vulnerable babies and toddlers – which is particularly disgusting.
“Every image in your collection represents an abused child, and your possession of them only fuels this vile trade.”
He concluded however: “There is a very, very, very fine line in this case. I came to court fully intending to impose an immediate term of custody.
“However, the more practical route is to suspend the sentence.”
Bann was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months.
He must also complete sessions of the Horizon sex offender treatment programme, 60 rehabilitation activity requirement days and 80 hours of unpaid work in the community.
In addition, the defendant must abide by the terms of a sexual harm prevention order and sign the sex offender register – both for the next 10 years.
Finally, Judge Byrne approved an order for the forfeiture and destruction of Bann’s laptop and told him that if he breached his suspended sentence, he would be going to prison.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article