DANIEL OLIVER FROM NORTON MANDEVILLE AND PETERBOROUGH SENTENCED FOR CHILD ABUSE IMAGES AND EXTREME PORNOGRAPHY

On Monday, the Peterborough Magistrates’ Court heard disturbing details about the case of Daniel Oliver, a resident of Norton Mandeville, who was found to possess a horrifying collection of illegal images and videos on his electronic devices. The evidence revealed that Oliver’s laptop and phone contained explicit photographs and videos depicting children as young as six, ten, twelve, and fourteen years old being subjected to severe abuse. These images represented a grave violation of child safety and highlighted the severity of his criminal conduct.

In addition to the child abuse material, authorities uncovered 32 extremely graphic images involving bestiality, including sexual acts with horses, dogs, and pigs. Such material is classified as extreme pornography and is considered highly illegal and morally reprehensible. The discovery of these images prompted a serious legal response, given the nature and quantity of the material involved.

Daniel Oliver, aged 26, appeared before the court where he pleaded guilty to three charges related to the creation and possession of indecent images, as well as possessing extreme pornographic content. The offences date back to March 25, 2019, and the court was informed of the full extent of his illegal activities.

During sentencing, the chair of the bench, Alison Marsh, emphasized the gravity of the offences. She stated, “These are very serious offences and they are of a very unpleasant nature. In view of the number of images and the nature of the images, we do feel the custody threshold has been passed.” Despite the seriousness, the court acknowledged Oliver’s age, his previous good character, and his willingness to change. As a result, the judge decided to suspend his prison sentence for two years, meaning he would not serve time unless he committed further offences.

As part of his sentence, Oliver was ordered to complete 120 hours of unpaid community work, attend up to 20 days of rehabilitation activities, and participate in the Horizon sex offender programme. These measures aim to address his behaviour and reduce the risk of reoffending.

The case was initiated after the National Crime Agency (NCA) traced Oliver through information obtained from someone uploading images via the Kick messenger app. Authorities seized devices from his residence in Norton Mandeville, which were subsequently examined. During police interviews, Oliver admitted to using the Kik messaging platform since he was 15 years old, maintaining four or five different accounts. He also revealed that he was part of a group called “No Rules,” which was associated with sharing illicit content.

Oliver explained that he had received indecent images along with general pornography but claimed he was not interested in the indecent material. When questioned about his continued use of Kik, he stated that he believed deleting the images would be enough to prevent detection, a misconception that contributed to his ongoing possession of illegal content.

In mitigation, solicitor Julie Murtagh described Oliver as socially awkward with low self-esteem and struggling with mental health issues. She highlighted that his addiction to pornography and the circumstances leading to his court appearance were “really quite sad.” Murtagh explained that Oliver had sought comfort in pornography following his father’s diagnosis with cancer, which provided him with a temporary sense of relief. She likened his addiction to an addictive drug, noting that he needed increasingly more to achieve the same “high.”

Furthermore, the solicitor mentioned that Oliver’s father was now receiving end-of-life care, and that informing his family about the court proceedings had been an extremely difficult experience for him. A pre-sentence report prepared by a probation officer concluded that Oliver was a young man whose issues could be addressed effectively within the community setting.

As part of his sentence, Oliver was subjected to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, aimed at restricting his access to certain online content and preventing further harm. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £115 and prosecution costs of £85, reflecting the court’s efforts to hold him accountable and support victim recovery.