EDWARD TOMLINSON FROM CASSOP JAILED IN DURHAM FOR INTERNET HISTORY WIPING SOFTWARE

In September 2022, Edward Tomlinson, a pensioner residing in Cassop, Durham, was sentenced to prison following serious breaches of court orders related to his previous criminal conduct. The case unfolded after police uncovered that Tomlinson had installed specialized software on his computer, which was explicitly banned due to his prior offenses involving indecent images of children.

Tomlinson, aged 74, had previously been convicted in March of the previous year for possessing a disturbing collection of indecent images depicting children as young as two years old. His sentence at that time was a 10-month prison term, suspended for 18 months, and he was also subjected to a sexual harm prevention order. Additionally, he was ordered to participate in rehabilitation programs aimed at addressing his behavior.

Despite these court-imposed restrictions, Tomlinson violated the sexual harm prevention order on three separate occasions. The breaches came to light after police received intelligence in May of the previous year indicating that he had installed three different types of software on his computer. These programs were designed to allow him to delete and conceal his internet browsing history, effectively hiding any potentially incriminating activity from scrutiny.

On July 5, police officers executed a search warrant at Tomlinson’s residence on Luke Avenue, Cassop. During the search, they seized a Samsung tablet and a computer unit. The examination of the computer revealed the presence of cleaning software that had been run at least three times by Tomlinson himself. The mobile device was also scrutinized, revealing the installation of a privacy browser, which is often used to avoid detection and conceal online activity.

In interviews, Tomlinson claimed that the software was installed for benign purposes, such as streaming movies. He also stated that he used the privacy browser as a search engine alternative to Google to avoid advertisements. However, authorities found no indecent material on either the computer or the mobile device during their examinations.

Despite the absence of illegal content on his devices, the court found that Tomlinson’s actions constituted a breach of his previous court orders. Prosecutor Anthony Pettengell emphasized that the presence of the software indicated an intent to hide his online activity, which was a cause for concern.

At Durham Crown Court, Judge James Adkin addressed the case, stating, “It seems to me that the inference from those three software programmes was to hide your internet activity as you still maintain an interest in hiding what you are doing.” The judge expressed ongoing concerns about the potential risks posed by Tomlinson’s behavior and sentenced him to an additional 14 months in prison, emphasizing the seriousness of his breaches and the need for deterrence.