ANDREW NELSON FROM MIRFIELD SENTENCED FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSES IN LEEDS
In a case that has shocked the community of Mirfield, Andrew Nelson, a local resident, was found guilty of possessing an extensive collection of child pornography.The police conducted a raid on Nelson’s residence in Mirfield in February 2009, uncovering a staggering total of over 168,000 indecent images of children stored on his computer.
The images ranged from photographs of teenage girls to a disturbing video featuring a baby, highlighting the severity and disturbing nature of his collection.
During the sentencing hearing at Leeds Crown Court, Judge Scott Wolstenholme emphasized the gravity of Nelson’s actions, stating, “Accessing child pornography on a computer is not a victimless crime since the photographs represent the abuse of real children.” The court was told that Nelson’s computer was actively used for viewing such material, and during the police raid, he attempted to obstruct the investigation by pulling out the power cable from his computer as officers entered his home.
Nelson, aged 39, explained to officers that he removed the lead because there was pornography displayed on the screen and a female officer was present.
He admitted that there were files on his computer that he knew he shouldn’t have been viewing.
The police investigation categorized the images into different levels of seriousness, with the majority—168,034 images—classified as level one, the least serious.
There were also 418 images at level two, four at level three, five at level four, and two at level five, the most serious category.
Andrew Nelson, who operates Mirfield Computers, pleaded guilty to 19 counts of making indecent images of children.
His defense, represented by Freddy Apfel, argued that there was no evidence to suggest Nelson actively searched for the higher-level images.
Instead, it was accepted that he had copied images from customers’ computers.
The defense also highlighted that 99.7% of the images were of the lowest level, and since his arrest, Nelson had not committed any further offenses nor distributed any of the images.
Character references were submitted to the court, providing insight into Nelson’s background.
Despite this, Judge Wolstenholme made it clear that Nelson’s obsession with pornography was evident.
The judge stated, “If I imposed an immediate custodial sentence, it wouldn’t be possible to do any meaningful work with you to prevent re-offending.” As a result, Nelson was sentenced to a 12-week jail term, suspended for two years, with a two-year supervision order.
Additionally, he was subject to a 10-year sexual offences prevention order, required to participate in a sex offender treatment program, and mandated to register as a sex offender for the next decade.
Nelson’s actions have left a lasting impact on the community of Mirfield and serve as a stark reminder of the serious consequences associated with such crimes.
