DERBY PAEDOPHILE CHRISTOPHER JONES HOARDED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IMAGES AT PRIMARY SCHOOL

In August 2011, a disturbing case emerged involving Christopher Jones, a 27-year-old man from Derby, who was found to have accumulated an extensive collection of over 800 sexual images and videos depicting children as young as three years old. The shocking discovery came to light after Jones's flatmate accessed his computer and uncovered the disturbing library of illicit material stored on his devices.

Jones had been actively volunteering at a local primary school for several years, a role that allowed him daily and legitimate access to young children. However, his involvement in the school was marred by the revelation that he had downloaded child pornography onto various electronic devices, including computers, mobile phones, and memory sticks. The police investigation uncovered that the images included both photographs and videos of boys and girls, with ages ranging from three to 14. Some of these images fell into the most explicit and depraved categories of child exploitation material.

During the court proceedings at Derby Crown Court, it was revealed that Jones had not confided in his family about the charges or his upcoming court appearance, indicating a level of shame or concealment. Judge Hilary Watson expressed grave concern over the fact that Jones had unrestricted access to children over the years, emphasizing the potential danger posed by his actions. She stated, 'That means you had daily and legitimate access to young children and it is clearly very concerning that, during that period, it would appear you had a collection of this material.'

As part of his sentencing, Jones was placed on the sex offenders' register for a period of five years. Additionally, he received a three-year community order, which included a requirement to participate in a sex offenders' treatment program. Judge Watson highlighted the severity of the images found, noting that some were so deviant and unacceptable that they belonged to the highest categories of child exploitation material, involving particularly despicable content.

Jones admitted to 14 charges of making indecent images of children. The judge underscored the gravity of his offenses, describing them as among the most perverted and unpleasant, involving children photographed in compromising and sexually abusive positions. Despite the seriousness of his crimes, Judge Watson expressed concern that Jones might be at risk of progressing from viewing such images to engaging in activities with children directly.

To mitigate this risk, Jones was ordered to comply with a sexual offences prevention order. This order restricts him from entering public places where children under 16 are likely to gather, such as schools, parks, and swimming pools. The court did not disclose the specific school where Jones volunteered, nor did Derbyshire Police or Derby City Council reveal its identity. A police spokesperson explained that naming the school could cause undue distress to parents, emphasizing that there was no evidence to suggest Jones committed any offenses against children in Derbyshire.

During the hearing, Jones's defense lawyer, Stuart Newsam, explained that such behavior is often part of a complex process of understanding and coming to terms with one's wrongdoing. He argued that the intervention Jones required was not available in custody and that Jones was confused about his motivations. Mr. Newsam described his client’s actions as compulsive, allowing him to dehumanize his victims, and acknowledged that Jones recognized he was part of a chain of abuse. He also stated that Jones was willing to engage in a program to explore the reasons behind his fascination with such material over the past two years.

Overall, the case underscores the ongoing concerns about individuals who have access to children through volunteer roles or employment, and the importance of strict legal measures to prevent potential harm. Jones's case remains a stark reminder of the dangers posed by those who exploit their positions of trust for malicious purposes.