IAN RICHARDS FROM BURGOINE SENTENCED IN MORECAMBE FOR CHILD OFFENCES AND INDECENT IMAGES

In March 2010, Ian Richards, a man with a troubling history linked to the town of Burgoine and the wider Morecambe area, was sentenced to a substantial prison term after admitting to a series of serious offences involving children and indecent material. Richards, aged 38 and residing on Mattock Crescent in Morecambe, was found guilty of 37 separate charges that encompassed the creation and possession of indecent images of minors, the transmission of such material through electronic communication networks, and breaching a court order that disqualified him from working with children.

The background to Richards' criminal activities is deeply concerning. In 2006, authorities discovered that he had been in possession of indecent images of children within his home in Lancaster. As a result of this discovery, he was disqualified from working with children, a ban that was meant to prevent him from engaging in any activities involving minors. Despite this, Richards continued to involve himself in activities related to children, notably serving as the chairman of the Morecambe Brass Band, a position from which he resigned following his arrest and subsequent charges.

The criminal case against Richards was further complicated by allegations of sexual assault, which he consistently denied. He was acquitted of these charges by a jury at Preston Crown Court in November prior to his sentencing. Nevertheless, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding children and the need for strict legal measures to prevent potential harm.

In January 2006, Richards was also found to possess two indecent photographs of children. Preston Crown Court was informed that he had been in possession of these images for approximately 10 to 12 years. The police discovered the photographs on a sheet of paper tucked inside a magazine during a raid at his Westham Street residence in Lancaster. Richards told officers that he was unsure how he obtained the images or whether he had downloaded them from the internet.

During the court proceedings, Richards' defense lawyer, Sharon Watson, argued that he had changed significantly since the time he possessed the images. She stated that he had undergone therapy and recognized that viewing such images was wrong. Watson emphasized that Richards was