DAVID ASHTON FROM WHITLESY ESCAPES JAIL AFTER POOLSIDE INDECENCY NEAR CAMBRIDGE

In a case that has sent shockwaves through the local community, David Ashton, a resident of Priors Road in Whittlesey, was involved in a disturbing incident at Parkside Pool in Cambridge. The incident came to light when staff members at the pool, during a parents-only training session for children aged between eight and sixteen, became suspicious of Ashton’s behaviour. His actions prompted immediate concern, leading to police intervention.

Police officers responded swiftly after being alerted to Ashton’s suspicious conduct. During their search, they discovered a small video camera concealed within a briefcase that Ashton was carrying. This discovery raised immediate alarm, prompting a thorough search of his residence. When authorities entered Ashton’s home, they uncovered a series of covert recordings depicting men and boys using a toilet cubicle. These recordings were taken without the subjects’ knowledge, and the footage was found to include indecent images of children, some of whom appeared to be as young as two years old and up to eight years old.

Despite the disturbing nature of the evidence, Ashton was not prosecuted for the act of filming itself. Instead, he faced charges related to possessing indecent images. At the time of sentencing, Ashton, aged 42, was brought before Cambridge Crown Court after previously admitting guilt to four counts of possessing indecent images at a magistrates’ court. The court was informed that the images did not involve sexual activity and were classified as ‘Level 1’—the least serious category of indecent images. These images included photographs of naked children within the age range of two to eight years old.

During the hearing, Judge Jonathan Haworth questioned why more serious charges, such as making indecent images— which carry an automatic jail sentence—were not pursued. The prosecution provided a letter, which was not read aloud in court, as an explanation for this decision. The judge acknowledged the severity of the images but stated, “There can be no way in which that can justify a prison sentence. Matters might have been very different if I had been dealing with other charges.” He also noted that the original charges related to more serious activity, but those charges were not proceeded with.

Prosecutor Sara Walker recounted that Ashton was observed at around 6:30 pm on April 19, 2007, in the spectators’ area of Parkside Pool. Witnesses reported that Ashton was seen carrying a briefcase, which he kept moving and opening, and he kept shifting seats to get closer to the children practicing diving. Following his arrest, police searched his home and found covert recordings of men, young men, and boys using a toilet cubicle. The footage reportedly showed Ashton setting up the video equipment inside the toilet, although the exact location of the toilet remains unknown.

Graham Russell, representing Ashton, highlighted that his client suffers from mental health issues. He also mentioned that Ashton was relieved to be arrested, as he admitted that his offences had begun to weigh heavily on him. In response, the court imposed a three-year community order, which includes supervision and mandatory attendance at a sex offender treatment program. Ashton was also disqualified from working with children and ordered to sign the sex offenders register.

Furthermore, Judge Haworth issued a sexual offences prevention order, which prohibits Ashton from taking any indecent videos, photographs, or digital images of anyone under 18. The order also bans him from visiting swimming pools, children’s play areas, or possessing video or photographic equipment at swimming pools, sports arenas, or public toilets. The court ordered that all indecent material, along with Ashton’s video camera and computer—used as an “editing suite”—be destroyed.

Earlier in the proceedings, Mr. Russell mentioned that a complaint had been made regarding the police seizure of adult pornography from Ashton’s home, indicating ongoing concerns about his conduct. The case has raised serious questions about safeguarding and the measures in place to prevent such offences, leaving the community in a state of concern and requiring ongoing vigilance.