DANIEL LINTOTT FROM CLAYDON JAILED FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSES IN IPSWICH

In July 2010, a man from Claydon named Daniel Lintott was sentenced to a three-year prison term after being found guilty of possessing and distributing a vast collection of child pornography images. The case, heard at Ipswich Crown Court, revealed that Lintott, aged 23 at the time, had downloaded and stored more than 21,000 indecent images and videos depicting children, some of which were classified as the most severe category of abuse.

Judge John Devaux, presiding over the case, described the most disturbing image as “unspeakably vile,” emphasizing the severity of the material Lintott had accumulated. The court was told that Lintott had admitted to 16 counts of making indecent images of children, one count of possessing such images, and another of distributing them. The evidence presented indicated that the images and videos were stored on Lintott’s computer equipment, which was seized by police during their investigation.

According to the prosecution, police traced Lintott’s activities through his unique user identification on a child abuse file-sharing platform. Authorities also confiscated his computer hardware from his residence in Claydon. The investigation uncovered that out of the total 21,423 images and movies found, approximately 400 were classified as level five, indicating the most serious and disturbing content.

During the sentencing, Judge Devaux ordered Lintott to register as a sex offender indefinitely and imposed a Sexual Offences Prevention Order to restrict his future activities. Furthermore, the judge announced that a ban on working with children would be enforced, aiming to prevent any potential risk to minors.

Prosecutor Robert Sadd highlighted the gravity of the case, noting that a policewoman involved in the investigation described one of the level five images as “the worst she had seen in her four years’ experience.” He explained that Lintott had used a French-based system to share these images with like-minded individuals but clarified that his actions were not driven by commercial motives.

In his defense, Lintott’s solicitor, Claire Hullock, stated that her client had pleaded guilty early in the proceedings. She acknowledged that although Lintott initially answered “no comment” during police interviews, he later became cooperative and transparent about his actions. Hullock also mentioned that Lintott had deleted the particularly heinous image after viewing it, as he found it disgusting. She emphasized that her client expressed remorse and regret for his conduct and had gained a better understanding of the suffering inflicted on the victims depicted in the images.

Hullock further noted that Lintott was employed as a computer technician, which underscored the disturbing nature of his offenses given his professional background. The court’s decision reflected the seriousness of the crimes committed and the need to protect the community from further harm.