ROBERT CONNELL FROM WEST BRIDGFORD SLAPPED WITH 12-YEAR SEX OFFENDER ORDER AFTER DELAYED JUSTICE IN NOTTINGHAM

In September 2010, a significant case involving a sex offender from West Bridgford drew public and judicial attention due to the prolonged delay in delivering justice. Judge Dudley Bennett expressed his outrage over the fact that Robert Connell, aged 50, had to wait more than two years to face sentencing for serious charges related to child pornography. The judge described the situation as an "utter disgrace" and demanded an explanation for the extensive delay during his sentencing remarks at Nottingham Crown Court.

Connell's criminal activities came to light following an investigation that began on July 28, 2008, when police received information suggesting online child exploitation. Authorities acted swiftly, seizing his computer from his residence on Church Drive in West Bridgford. During the investigation, Connell cooperated fully with law enforcement officers, providing them with his computer password. Despite his cooperation, the technical analysis of his digital devices was significantly delayed, primarily due to the high caseload faced by the hi-tech crime unit. This backlog contributed to the lengthy period before he was brought to justice.

Judge Bennett did not hold back in his criticism, stating, "I think it is an utter disgrace," and emphasized the need for accountability by demanding an explanation from those responsible for the delay. The prosecution assured the court that they would relay the judge’s concerns to the relevant authorities.

By July of the same year, Robert Connell, who had since moved to Lancashire, pleaded guilty to eight charges of making indecent images of a child. The court was informed that Connell lived alone, rarely received visitors, and had not been involved in any romantic relationships for many years. During police interviews, he admitted to watching women and girls on his computer, and investigators discovered that some of the illicit images had been deleted from his devices, complicating the investigation.

Judge Bennett condemned Connell’s actions, stating, "You downloaded disgusting images, some containing girls of four or five years of age. It’s not simply viewing the pictures; it’s the corruption of the children that is so serious." The court heard that the images depicted young girls, some as young as four or five, highlighting the severity of the offense.

In sentencing, Connell was handed a community order for a period of three years, which includes supervision by the Probation Service. Additionally, he is now subject to a 12-year sexual offences prevention order, will remain on the sex offenders’ register for five years, and is required to complete a specialized internet sex offender treatment program. These measures aim to monitor and rehabilitate him, as well as protect the public from potential future harm.

During mitigation, Adrian Langdale, representing Connell, argued that his client had shown remorse by pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity, cooperating with police, and maintaining a record of good character prior to the offenses. Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasized the gravity of the crimes committed and the importance of ongoing supervision and restrictions to prevent further harm.