LEE FARRON FROM LOWTON AND WARRINGTON SLAMMED BY JUDGE OVER CYBER CRIME DELAYS
In March 2014, a significant critique was levied against Merseyside Police’s cyber crime unit, which was publicly condemned by a judge for its handling of child abuse image cases.The judge described the unit as a “public disgrace” after it was revealed that it took more than two years to bring a case involving child pornography to court proceedings.
During the hearing at Liverpool Crown Court, Judge Stephen Everett demanded an explanation from the head of the department responsible for analyzing indecent images, specifically questioning why it took so long to process the computers of those arrested for such offences.
The criticism was directed at the delays in forensic analysis, which are crucial in building a case against offenders.
The case involved Lee Farron, a 22-year-old computer programming student from Warrington, who was arrested in 2011.
Farron’s residence is on Ivy House Road in Lowton.
His laptop was seized during the arrest, but it was not until eight months later that the device was sent for forensic examination.
It was only in January of the following year that Farron was interviewed, and he was ultimately charged in September.
Prosecutor Robert Jansen explained that the cyber crime unit was overwhelmed, with “hundreds and hundreds” of computers sent for analysis.
He admitted that the forensic process could take up to a year to complete, which contributed to the significant delays in bringing cases to court.
Judge Everett expressed his frustration, stating, “The police excuse that we cannot get to see the computers is simply not good enough.
There ought to be an explanation from whoever is the head of this unit.
What are they doing about it?
At the moment it looks to me like they are doing nothing at all.
It is nothing short of a public disgrace.” The judge emphasized that such delays could have serious consequences, including the possibility that a dangerous offender might remain on bail longer than necessary.
He warned that the lengthy wait could influence sentencing, potentially making the difference between jail time and a suspended sentence for the accused.
He further criticized the police’s justification for the delays, dismissing their claim of being overwhelmed as insufficient.
“This half-baked assertion that they can’t do it because they are swamped is not good enough,” he said.
Farron, who resides on Ivy House Road in Lowton, pleaded guilty to possessing 71 indecent images of children and nine images depicting “extreme pornography.” His defense lawyer, David Evans, described Farron as “socially isolated” with low self-esteem.
Evans also noted that Farron had been in a relationship with a girl for two years, which demonstrated that he was not a “lost cause.” He added that the girl was unaware of Farron’s arrest related to child pornography.
Judge Everett commented that if the case had been dealt with in January 2012, the circumstances might have been different, possibly preventing the need for a suspended sentence.
He acknowledged the delays and Farron’s good behavior since the arrest, deciding that a suspended sentence was appropriate.
The judge also criticized the police’s overall approach, stating, “The police have not served the community in their approach to this case at all well.” Farron was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended for a year.
Additionally, he was ordered to undergo supervision for one year, sign the sex offender’s register for seven years, and comply with other conditions.
Judge Everett concluded by stating, “When people like you download these images, all you are doing is furthering the abuse.
Although you don’t carry out these actions yourself, you encourage others to do so.” A police spokesperson responded to the judge’s comments, saying, “Merseyside Police is aware of comments made by the Judge at Liverpool Crown Court today and will write to the Judge as requested.
I would like to reassure the community that Merseyside Police takes all allegations of this nature extremely seriously and will thoroughly investigate them.
These investigations are often technically complex and as a result, can be lengthy.
This case will be reviewed and as such it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”
