LICHFIELD PAEDOPHILE IAN OWEN REGAINS ILLEGAL VIDEOS AFTER POLICE MISTAKE

In a disturbing case that has raised serious concerns about police procedures and the handling of sensitive evidence, Ian Owen, a resident of Lichfield, found himself at the center of a legal controversy involving the mishandling of criminal material. The incident dates back to April 2014, when police inadvertently returned a video containing highly inappropriate images of children to Owen after he had been released from prison.

According to court reports, the video in question depicted undressed children on Blackpool beach. This footage was originally part of evidence used to convict Owen in May 2007, when he was sentenced to six months in prison for making indecent images of children. The authorities had a clear obligation to destroy such material following his conviction, yet it was later discovered that the tape was not destroyed as mandated. Instead, it was found six years later during an annual inspection of Owen’s residence by police officers.

During this inspection, officers uncovered the tape, which Owen had subsequently edited for his own sexual gratification using recording equipment he was prohibited from possessing under a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). The order was part of his legal restrictions following previous offences. The police also found another disturbing video during the same check, recorded on October 6 of the previous year. This second video showed three naked girls entering and exiting swimming pools. Owen claimed he had received this footage from another man in Lichfield.

Owen, aged 53 and residing on Smithy Lane in Lichfield, faced multiple charges related to his possession and creation of indecent images. He pleaded guilty to breaching his SOPO, making an indecent image of a child, and possessing such images. As a result, he was sentenced to a three-year community order, which includes participation in a sex offenders’ treatment program. Additionally, Owen was ordered to re-register as a sex offender with the police for the next five years, and his SOPO was extended indefinitely, reflecting the seriousness of his violations.

During the sentencing at Stafford Crown Court, Recorder Mr. Timothy Raggatt QC acknowledged the complexity of Owen’s case. He noted that the alternative to the community order could have been a short prison sentence but emphasized that Owen would remain under close supervision by the probation service for an extended period. The judge highlighted the ongoing risk posed by Owen, given his history and current offences.

It was also revealed that this was Owen’s fourth set of paedophile-related offences. His criminal record includes fines for indecent photography in Blackpool in 1996 and 2003, and a previous jail sentence at Stafford in May 2007. The case underscored a troubling pattern of offending behavior spanning over a decade.

The court heard that the mishandling of evidence was particularly problematic. Mr. Paul Spratt, prosecuting, explained that after Owen’s release from prison, he visited the police to collect personal property. During this process, Owen was mistakenly given back the video material that should have been destroyed. Although he was aware of his legal obligations, Owen admitted to editing the videos for his own sexual gratification. Police later found a DVD recorder, a camcorder, and several mobile phones capable of recording video at his home, all of which he was banned from possessing.

In his defense, Owen’s lawyer, Mr. Mark Nicholls, argued that at the time of his original conviction, an order was made for the destruction of the Blackpool video. He explained that Owen had recorded old episodes of Top of the Pops and was permitted to apply for the return of such recordings. Mr. Nicholls also stated that Owen had returned a camcorder to the police when asked, but he did not make an effort to return the Blackpool video, which he claimed was due to confusion about what he was allowed to keep.

Overall, the case highlights significant issues regarding the management of evidence in sexual offence cases and raises questions about the effectiveness of current procedures to prevent such mistakes from occurring again. The court’s decision reflects the ongoing concern about the safety of the community and the importance of strict enforcement of restrictions placed on offenders like Ian Owen in Lichfield.