GRAHAM LIVERMORE JIM TAYLOR CAUGHT IN CROXLEY GREEN WITH CHILD SEX ABUSE IMAGES

In August 2015, a disturbing case unfolded at St Albans Crown Court involving Graham Livermore, a man from Croxley Green, who was found guilty of possessing indecent images of children for the third time. The court heard that Livermore, aged 65 and wheelchair-bound due to multiple sclerosis, had previously been given a suspended 12-month prison sentence for similar offenses. However, his repeated offenses and the nature of his crimes led the judge to deliver a more severe sentence.

Judge Martin Griffith addressed Livermore directly during the proceedings, stating, "Your get out of jail card worked once. It has been used before. It cannot be used again." This remark underscored the court’s stance that Livermore’s medical condition could no longer serve as a mitigating factor. Consequently, Livermore was sentenced to a total of two years in prison—12 months for breaching his previous suspended sentence and an additional 12 months for the current offenses.

Livermore, who resides on Rugby Way in Croxley Green, had a long history of offenses related to child exploitation images. His initial diagnosis of multiple sclerosis dates back to 1990, and he had previously been convicted in 2010 for downloading and possessing indecent images, which resulted in a three-year community order. In July of the previous year, he was given a suspended 12-month sentence after police discovered 1,601 images on his devices. Initially, Livermore claimed that these images had been downloaded by a man named Reg Brown, a person he later admitted did not exist.

During the police raid in January, officers seized Livermore’s Acer computer and two USB sticks. The investigation revealed that he possessed 912 indecent images, categorized into various levels of severity: 61 images at Category A, the most serious, 77 at Category B, and 774 at Category C. The police also found that Livermore had breached a Sexual Offences Prevention Order by installing software to delete browsing history and by purchasing a new computer that lacked Hertfordshire police’s monitoring software. These actions indicated an ongoing attempt to conceal his activities.

Further details emerged from the court proceedings, highlighting Livermore’s repeated violations. In July 2014, he was caught with 1,601 images and received a suspended sentence. Despite his claims that the images were for artistic purposes and that he used search terms like “Little Girls,” the court found his explanations unconvincing. Prosecutor David Chrimes emphasized that the images included 61 at Category A, 77 at Category B, and 774 at Category C, illustrating the severity of his offenses.

Livermore’s defense argued that he was an isolated individual and that he had been deluding himself about the nature of his actions. His lawyer, Andrew Campbell, stated that Livermore had recognized the gravity of his situation and that the “penny has dropped.” However, Judge John Plumstead was unequivocal in his condemnation, stating, “You have played a part in the degradation of children. If people like you did not download these images, they would not be taken and uploaded.”

Given Livermore’s health issues, the judge considered a custodial sentence but ultimately decided against it, opting instead for a 12-month sentence suspended for two years. The court also imposed a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, which requires Livermore to have all browsing history recorded and accessible, and to register as a sex offender indefinitely. He is also prohibited from working with children and must allow police access to his computer. Additionally, he is banned from using encryption software to hide files.

Throughout the proceedings, it was suggested that Livermore was in denial about the full extent of his behavior. Judge Plumstead remarked on his continued claims of having interests other than sexual, which he viewed as a sign of unresolved issues. The judge emphasized that, although Livermore’s health problems complicated his rehabilitation prospects, his actions had caused significant harm, and the court’s primary concern was protecting the community from further offenses.