ANDREW ULAVICIUS CAUGHT WITH CHILD PORN IN WITHAM ST HUGHS NEAR LINCOLN

In November 2018, authorities conducted a raid on the residence of Andrew Ulavicius, a 72-year-old man living in Witham St Hughs, near Lincoln. The operation was prompted by suspicions related to the possession of illegal material, leading police to uncover a disturbing cache of child exploitation content within his home.

During the search, officers discovered a significant collection of inappropriate images stored on Ulavicius’ personal devices, including a laptop computer and a USB stick. The investigation revealed that the laptop contained a total of 404 indecent images of children, among which 145 were classified as the most severe category of abuse. The USB device held an additional 196 indecent images, along with 852 prohibited images, which included cartoons and digitally manipulated images designed to mimic real children. Furthermore, authorities found 159 extreme pornographic images, highlighting the disturbing nature of the material.

The police report indicated that the images depicted young girls as young as four years old being subjected to sexual abuse. When questioned about the material, Ulavicius reportedly told officers, “I am not a paedophile,” and claimed that he was simply “curious.” Prosecutor Jonathon Dee described Ulavicius’ interview as unusually candid, noting that the defendant openly discussed his sexual issues and his need for extreme pornography to achieve arousal.

Following the investigation, Ulavicius faced multiple charges, including possession of indecent images of children, possession of prohibited images, and possession of extreme pornography. He pleaded guilty to these charges in court. The court sentenced him to a 12-month jail term, which was suspended for two years. Additionally, he was ordered to complete up to 30 days of rehabilitation activities. Ulavicius was also placed on the sex offenders’ register for a period of ten years and was subject to an indefinite sexual harm prevention order.

Legal representatives argued that a community order might be more appropriate than imprisonment, but the court ultimately decided on the suspended sentence and the other restrictions, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the need for ongoing monitoring.