A SOUTH TYNESIDE TRAVELLING JOINER CAUGHT WITH 315 INDECENT IMAGES OF CHILDREN HAS BEEN SPARED JAIL BUT MADE SUBJECT TO POLICE CHECKS FOR A DECADE.
Jordan Hill, aged 28 and residing on Monkton Lane in Monkton, Jarrow, was released from court after being sentenced to 12 months in prison, which was suspended for two years.Despite this, magistrates required him to comply with the notification obligations outlined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of ten years.
This means he is obligated to provide police with various personal details and inform them of any travel plans abroad.
Authorities can also visit his home unannounced and access his communication devices.
Prosecutor Clare Irving explained that Hill was working in Sweden when police twice visited his residence in January 2023 to question him.
On a third visit that month, Hill's partner answered the door and informed officers that he was overseas but provided his mobile phone number.
The police did not disclose the reasons for their inquiry but contacted Hill later and arranged to meet him upon his return.
Hill voluntarily went to Sunderland’s Southwick police station in early February, where officers arrested him.
Forensic examination of two Apple iPhones recovered from Hill revealed 79 images classified as category A, indicating the most serious level; additionally, there were 98 images at category B and 138 at category C, as stated by Mrs Irving.
Hill admitted to three counts of creating indecent images of a child between April 2020 and November 2022 and also confessed to failing to surrender to custody on March 25.
Mrs Irving outlined that Hill was initially contacted by police who intended to speak with him.
After confirming his return to the UK, he agreed to attend Southwick station, where he was cautioned and taken into custody.
During his interview, he acknowledged the possession of the images and pleaded guilty to the three charges.
His failure to appear for sentencing in court on March 25 led to his detention, and he appeared in custody today following his arrest warrant.
Defense solicitor Alastair Naismith suggested that the magistrates consider three sentencing options: imprisonment, a suspended sentence, or a fine.
He favored a suspended sentence, arguing it would serve as a deterrent and help prevent reoffending, while noting that the Probation Service was hesitant to impose a community order that might interfere with Hill’s employment, which was important for his rehabilitation.
Magistrates ultimately ruled that due to the severity of the offences, only a custodial sentence was appropriate.
Hill was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £187 and court costs of £85.
