BENJAMIN DUNDON FROM ST IVES ESCAPES JAIL AFTER CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSES
| Red Rose Database
St Ives Child Sexual Abuser
In May 2010, a young man from St Ives named Benjamin Dundon faced serious allegations related to the possession and distribution of indecent images of children. The case was heard at Truro Crown Court, where Dundon, aged 20, was brought before Judge Nicholas Vincent to answer charges that could have resulted in a lengthy prison sentence.
During the proceedings, the prosecution revealed disturbing details about the evidence found on Dundon’s computer. Police investigations uncovered approximately 400 images classified at level one, indicating the least severe form of indecency. Additionally, there were 20 images at level two, three at level three, and two each at the more serious levels four and five. These levels correspond to the severity and nature of the images, with levels four and five representing the most explicit and abusive content.
Judge Vincent addressed Dundon directly, expressing his condemnation of the crimes. He stated, “You have got yourself involved in the vile business of child pornography which, sadly, is on the increase. The children involved are real children who are subjected to appalling abuse and who live tragic lives.” The judge emphasized the gravity of such offenses and the harm inflicted upon innocent victims.
Despite the seriousness of the charges, Dundon was spared immediate imprisonment. Instead, he was sentenced to a two-year community order that includes supervision and mandatory participation in the internet sex offenders’ programme. The judge acknowledged the severity of the offenses but was heavily influenced by a positive probation report and Dundon’s apparent immaturity. The report highlighted Dundon’s previous good character, supportive family background, and standing within the community.
Furthermore, Judge Vincent imposed a five-year Sexual Offences Prevention Order, which restricts Dundon’s activities and access to certain online content. He is also required to sign the sex offender register for five years, ensuring ongoing monitoring of his conduct.
Defence counsel Michael Melville-Shreeve pointed out that Dundon had cooperated fully by making early admissions of guilt. He stressed that his client was not a repeat offender and had no prior criminal record, which influenced the court’s decision to opt for a community-based sentence rather than incarceration.
During the proceedings, the prosecution revealed disturbing details about the evidence found on Dundon’s computer. Police investigations uncovered approximately 400 images classified at level one, indicating the least severe form of indecency. Additionally, there were 20 images at level two, three at level three, and two each at the more serious levels four and five. These levels correspond to the severity and nature of the images, with levels four and five representing the most explicit and abusive content.
Judge Vincent addressed Dundon directly, expressing his condemnation of the crimes. He stated, “You have got yourself involved in the vile business of child pornography which, sadly, is on the increase. The children involved are real children who are subjected to appalling abuse and who live tragic lives.” The judge emphasized the gravity of such offenses and the harm inflicted upon innocent victims.
Despite the seriousness of the charges, Dundon was spared immediate imprisonment. Instead, he was sentenced to a two-year community order that includes supervision and mandatory participation in the internet sex offenders’ programme. The judge acknowledged the severity of the offenses but was heavily influenced by a positive probation report and Dundon’s apparent immaturity. The report highlighted Dundon’s previous good character, supportive family background, and standing within the community.
Furthermore, Judge Vincent imposed a five-year Sexual Offences Prevention Order, which restricts Dundon’s activities and access to certain online content. He is also required to sign the sex offender register for five years, ensuring ongoing monitoring of his conduct.
Defence counsel Michael Melville-Shreeve pointed out that Dundon had cooperated fully by making early admissions of guilt. He stressed that his client was not a repeat offender and had no prior criminal record, which influenced the court’s decision to opt for a community-based sentence rather than incarceration.