DONALD VARTY FROM WALKERN SENTENCED FOR INDECENT IMAGES OF CHILDREN IN CAMBRIDGE

In April 2016, an 80-year-old resident of Walkern, Donald Varty, faced serious legal consequences after being found in possession of a significant collection of indecent images depicting children. The case was brought before Cambridge Crown Court, where Varty pleaded guilty to multiple charges related to the creation and possession of these illicit images.

Varty's residence on Cherry Tree Rise became the focus of police investigations on September 28 of the previous year. During a search of his home, authorities confiscated a computer and a laptop, which contained both still and moving images. These images had been deleted but were recovered by forensic experts, revealing a disturbing collection that included 31 images classified at the highest level of severity, Category A. Additionally, there were 25 images at Level B and a staggering 887 images at Level C. The victims in these images ranged in age from six to thirteen years old, highlighting the disturbing nature of the material involved.

At the court hearing, Judge Jonathan Haworth addressed the seriousness of the offenses, emphasizing that the law is unequivocal in its stance against such crimes. Despite the gravity of the charges, the judge took into account Varty's guilty plea and his previously good character, opting to suspend the prison sentence. Varty was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years, and was ordered to complete 60 days of rehabilitation activities. Furthermore, he was mandated to register as a sex offender for a period of seven years and was subject to a sexual harm prevention order, also lasting seven years. This order grants police the authority to monitor his internet activity and access, aiming to prevent any future offenses.

In addition to these measures, Varty was ordered to pay costs amounting to £200. Prosecutor Matthew Turner detailed that the police had acted swiftly, seizing the devices from Varty’s home and uncovering the illicit images, which had been deliberately deleted but recovered through forensic analysis.

Varty’s defense attorney, Charles Judge, offered mitigating remarks, suggesting that the images were downloaded out of curiosity rather than malicious intent. He explained that Varty acknowledged his wrongdoing and expressed remorse. The lawyer also highlighted that Varty had voluntarily participated in a pilot polygraph test conducted by Hertfordshire Constabulary, which did not raise any concerns about his honesty or character. Additionally, Varty had not disclosed details about his previous employment, citing legal restrictions; it is believed he previously worked in the defense industry.

Overall, the case underscores the ongoing efforts of law enforcement to combat the distribution and possession of child exploitation material, and the legal system’s firm stance on punishing such offenses, even when the offender’s background appears to be otherwise unblemished.