YORK PAEDOPHILE DAVID GRIFFITH SHAMES COMMUNITY WITH EXTREME PORNOGRAPHY

In a disturbing case that has shocked the city of York, David Griffith, a 74-year-old pensioner, has been found guilty of possessing highly disturbing and extreme sexual images involving adults, despite being under a court order that banned him from owning a computer. The incident highlights the ongoing issues surrounding offenders who breach restrictions meant to prevent access to such material.

According to court proceedings, police officers visited Griffith’s residence in August 2011 and discovered a laptop containing graphic and extreme sexual images. Among the material was a video that was deemed particularly disturbing by the court. Griffith, residing at Springfield Court off Holgate Road in York, pleaded guilty to four counts of possessing extreme sexual images and one count of breaching a sexual offences prevention order that had been imposed on him earlier.

The presiding judge, Judge Stephen Ashurst, expressed his condemnation of the material found, describing the images as “extremely disturbing.” He emphasized that members of the community would view such images as “completely depraved,” and pointed out that Griffith’s failure to comply with the court’s order and his possession of a computer had directly facilitated his access to these illicit materials. The judge also remarked on the importance of public safety and the need for offenders to change their behavior rather than simply face incarceration.

In light of the severity of the case, Judge Ashurst sentenced Griffith to a community order, which includes three years of supervision. Additionally, Griffith was instructed to participate in a sex offender treatment program, with the aim of addressing his underlying issues. The court’s decision reflects a focus on rehabilitation, recognizing that such measures may be more beneficial to society than repeated imprisonment.

Colin Byrne, representing Griffith, explained that the pensioner had purchased the computer to combat his loneliness. Byrne detailed that Griffith had engaged in an online chat room where he met a man from Oman. This online relationship became more personal, and the two eventually met in person. The younger man visited Griffith’s home, and they engaged in sexual activity. It was during this encounter that the younger man, who was interested in extreme pornography, sent Griffith the images that were later discovered by authorities.

It is important to note that Griffith had not owned a computer since August 2011, and he remains under regular police surveillance due to his previous conviction and registration on the sex offenders’ register. His case underscores the ongoing challenges faced by law enforcement in monitoring offenders and preventing access to harmful material.

Earlier in 2008, Griffith’s case was even more severe. At that time, he was a pensioner with no prior criminal record, but the discovery of child pornography on his computer led to a nine-month jail sentence. The court described the material as “disgusting,” involving children of very young ages, with indications of sadomasochistic activities. Judge Stuart Brown QC criticized the lack of treatment options available for short-term offenders like Griffith in prison, which could have helped address their perversions.

During that hearing, Griffith, then 69 and residing on Main Street in Fulford, York, admitted to 13 charges of possessing child pornography, including images involving infants. He was also placed on the sex offenders’ register for ten years and prohibited from owning a computer or using the internet unless under strict supervision for the same period. Police had uncovered 38 images on Griffith’s computer, with some classified at the highest levels of child exploitation, along with videos of similar content. The investigation was prompted after Griffith took his computer for repairs, which led to the discovery of the illicit material.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the dangers posed by individuals who breach court orders and the importance of vigilant law enforcement efforts to protect the community from such disturbing material.