Man on child porn charge was detected by Merseyside police

A MAN who pleaded guilty to one charge under the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act has been given the Probation Act after a lengthy hearing at Sligo District Court.

The defendant, whom the judge said should not be named or identified, pleaded guilty to a charge that on July 27, 2011, at an unknown location in Co. Sligo, knowingly produced child pornography by producing a document relating to a person depicted as being a child and depicted as being engaged in sexual activity contrary to Section 5 (1) (A) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998. Garda Terry Farrelly told the court that the matter arose as a result of an Interpol investigation into individuals involved in sending child porn via the internet.

He said Merseyside police alerted gardaí that there was a Sligo connection in a Skype message which could be traced to the defendant’s location. Four years later, on July 16, gardaí got a warrant to search the defendant’s home.

Phones and a laptop were seized and a Skype message from the defendant to another unidentified individual who was supposed to be a child was detected.

In the message, the court was told the defendant suggested he would like to sexually abuse young children.

The defendant was arrested and made certain admissions.

Judge Kevin Kilrane asked if there were any images of children in the message, and was told there were none.

When the judge asked what was behind the message, the garda said: “It was a fantasy, and it came from an adult to a child, and we can’t say who was at the other end of the line.”

The court heard the defendant had no previous convictions. He is a family man with a responsible job.

Garda Farrelly agreed under cross-examination from defence counsel Niall Flynn, instructed by solicitor Gerry McGovern, that there was no suggestion that the defendant was looking to buy child porn.

Mr Flynn said the defendant did not impede the gardaí and made full admissions.

He said there was no password on the message, it was not encrypted and there was no evidence of any images. It was in 2011 and happened over a short period of 10 to 14 days.

While the content was “grotesque”, Garda Farrelly agreed it was on the lower scale of offences.

Mr Flynn said there was no suggestion that the defendant was going to meet up with these other individuals. He also said gardaí had confirmed that the defendant had stopped activity in 2011 and has not come to any garda attention since.

Mr Flynn said it had caused great embarrassment to the defendant’s family and employers, both of whom had stood by him, and both were aware of the matter before the court. He said that Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, had confirmed that the defendant was not any risk to children.

Mr Flynn said the defendant was not at risk of being a sexual predator. “This was a once-off aberration,” he said.

Judge Kilrane asked what a conviction would mean in relation to the Sex Offenders Register if the defendant were convicted.

He was told a conviction would make it compulsory for him to be included on the register.

Mr Flynn said the defendant had a clear record.

He said this had happened 10 years ago next month, it was a once-off and was one line in a text conversation. He said there were no aggravating factors, no credit card deals, no degree of sophistication.

The defendant used Skype, which was easily accessible to all members of society.

There were a number of references in court for the defendant.

A Tusla report said the defendant was at no risk of re-offending.

The counsel said he knew it was a serious offence, but it was on the lower end of the scale of offences and happened a long time ago.

And he said this matter had been hanging over the defendant’s head for six years, since 2015.

The counsel asked the court to consider applying the Probation Act as the case had exceptional features. The defendant had €2,500 in court as donation for a childcare group. It was, said his counsel, a “significant sum”. Judge Kilrane said it was a very unusual case of events over a period of 14 days.

The judge said there was no evidence of paedophilia or deviant sexual behaviour, and it was clear that he was not a danger to his own children. Judge Kilrane said the question was why did he engage in this activity via Skype with another individual who may or may not be a child.

The defendant expressed certain preferences as to what excited him sexually and it was “quite shocking” to learn what was said in the message. The judge said there was no evidence of this message being shared or any commercial activity that supports people who are abusing children. Apart from this brief chat the defendant wasn’t deviant, and he was not buying child porn or distributing it.

The judge said he just did not know what the motivation was.

The defendant may have gone through some period of insanity and was engaging in a fantasy.

The judge said he did not believe the defendant was a closet paedophile and there was nothing to indicate that he was.

The defendant was normal in all other aspects and the defendant did not hide his offence. The judge said the “puzzle continues” and the court was inclined to come down on the view that it was “an aberration of some kind” and a kind of experiment.

Referring to the delay in the matter coming to court, the judge said he found this strange and said he would have thought it could have been done much sooner.

“For anyone to be left waiting for a court for six years is a torture and a torture to his family as he knew what was coming down the track,” he said. The judge said the fact that the defendant’s reputation was trashed was a sanction in itself.

He said the Sex Offenders Register was there to protect the public and he said that in this case they did not need that protection from the defendant. And if he were not a threat, then there was no need to put him on the Sex Offenders Register.

The judge added that a conviction would be “disproportionate”.

Judge Kilrane applied the Probation Act and directed that the €2,500 in court be given to a charitable organisation helping abused children.

The judge added that it would be “excessive punishment” if the defendant had his name published in the media.

If that happened, he would become “persona non grata”, his name would be destroyed and his family would suffer also, he said.