DANGEROUS CHILD SEX OFFENDER DAVID PATES OF WORCESTER IS DENIED APPEAL AGAINST LIFE-STYLE SENTENCE

In May 2011, high court judges upheld the conviction and indeterminate imprisonment of David Pates, a convicted paedophile from Worcester, who was deemed so dangerous that he is to be detained for life.

David Pates, aged 66 and residing at The Orchard, Powick, near Worcester, had previously been sentenced in 2007 at Worcester Crown Court to an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP), following his admission to charges of indecent assault on a child and the making and possession of indecent images of children. This open-ended sentence means he can only be released if authorities determine he no longer poses a threat.

His legal representatives argued that the sentence was excessively severe and that a fixed-term sentence with a clear release date would suffice. However, in a ruling by three senior judges sitting at London's Court of Appeal, it was confirmed that sufficient evidence demonstrated Pates' continued risk to young girls, leading to the reinforcement of his indefinite detention.

Judge Clement Goldstone QC highlighted that police discovered over 11,000 images and videos of child abuse on Pates’ computer in 2006, many at extreme levels of depravity. These included photographs of a child confined in a kennel and a stash of 258 videos of child pornography. The investigation also uncovered photos of children taken by Pates himself, some dating back to the 1980s.

The disturbing content prompted police to establish a dedicated helpline to assist potential victims in Worcester and around Pates’ former residence near Upton-upon-Severn.

The court noted that Pates had written a disturbing novel containing “alarming” fantasies involving the abuse of young children, which referenced actual children known to him.

Pates' criminal history includes a conviction for indecently assaulting a nine-year-old girl in the late 1990s and six indecent assaults on girls during 1984 when he was employed at a swimming pool.

During the appeal, James Dixon, representing Pates, contended that the indefinite sentence was “manifestly excessive,” claiming the court had overestimated the dangers Pates posed. Nonetheless, Judges Goldstone, Lord Justice Leveson, and Mr Justice Openshaw held that his past offences, combined with his ongoing violations and the nature of the material discovered, justified the continuation of his IPP sentence.

Judge Goldstone concluded: “The judge was entitled to conclude on the evidence before him that the imprisonment for public protection sentence was merited because of the danger of him moving on to further contact offences.”