EGHAM MAN STEVEN WILMER SENTENCED FOR CHILD ABUSE IMAGE DOWNLOADS IN GUILDFORD
| Red Rose Database
Egham Sexual Abuser
In July 2013, Steven Wilmer, a 28-year-old resident of Ashleigh Avenue in Egham, faced a serious legal case after authorities uncovered a significant collection of child abuse images stored on his computer. Wilmer voluntarily approached the police after discovering he was unable to delete these illicit files himself, a step that ultimately led to his arrest and court proceedings.
During the investigation, law enforcement officials executed a warrant at Wilmer’s residence in Egham on October 17. The search was prompted by tracing numerous downloads from a known website directly to his computer’s IP address. Although no immediate arrests were made at that time, Wilmer’s cooperation was noted, and he turned himself in to Staines police station within hours of the warrant execution. He was described as extremely remorseful during the process.
The police found nearly 4,500 images on Wilmer’s device, which prompted the court to examine the nature of his actions closely. Wilmer admitted to ten counts of making an indecent photograph of a child, with the offences occurring on or before October 17 of the previous year. The court was informed that Wilmer’s interest in these images was not driven by sexual arousal but rather by a disturbing desire to get a 'buzz' from viewing them late at night when his household was asleep. This behavior involved him actively searching for more images, which ranged from less severe to the most extreme categories of abuse.
Prosecutor Jessica Clarke provided detailed figures, revealing that Wilmer’s computer contained 3,895 images classified as Category One, the least serious, along with 88 images in Category Two, 256 in Category Three, 253 in Category Four, and three in the most severe Category Five. The court was told that Wilmer had become desensitized to the material, indicating a troubling normalization of such content.
In her sentencing remarks, Judge Suzan Matthews expressed her revulsion at the material but acknowledged Wilmer’s lack of sexual arousal from the images. She emphasized that he was not deemed fit for imprisonment, citing concerns about his emotional maturity. Instead, she imposed a three-year community order, warning that any breach would result in a harsher penalty. The judge also made it clear that Wilmer’s behavior was unacceptable and that he must adhere strictly to the conditions set forth.
Wilmer was placed on the sex offenders’ register, with restrictions preventing him from having unsupervised contact with anyone under 18. Additionally, an order was issued for the destruction of his computer to prevent further access to such material. He was also ordered to pay £540 in prosecution costs within three months.
Supporters, including family friends like Helen Davis, described Wilmer as “inherently honest” and suggested he was somewhat emotionally immature for his age. Davis remarked that Wilmer appeared “a bit young for his age,” reflecting a perception of his developmental state. Despite the remorse shown, the court’s decision underscores the seriousness of his actions and the need for ongoing supervision and restrictions to protect the community.
During the investigation, law enforcement officials executed a warrant at Wilmer’s residence in Egham on October 17. The search was prompted by tracing numerous downloads from a known website directly to his computer’s IP address. Although no immediate arrests were made at that time, Wilmer’s cooperation was noted, and he turned himself in to Staines police station within hours of the warrant execution. He was described as extremely remorseful during the process.
The police found nearly 4,500 images on Wilmer’s device, which prompted the court to examine the nature of his actions closely. Wilmer admitted to ten counts of making an indecent photograph of a child, with the offences occurring on or before October 17 of the previous year. The court was informed that Wilmer’s interest in these images was not driven by sexual arousal but rather by a disturbing desire to get a 'buzz' from viewing them late at night when his household was asleep. This behavior involved him actively searching for more images, which ranged from less severe to the most extreme categories of abuse.
Prosecutor Jessica Clarke provided detailed figures, revealing that Wilmer’s computer contained 3,895 images classified as Category One, the least serious, along with 88 images in Category Two, 256 in Category Three, 253 in Category Four, and three in the most severe Category Five. The court was told that Wilmer had become desensitized to the material, indicating a troubling normalization of such content.
In her sentencing remarks, Judge Suzan Matthews expressed her revulsion at the material but acknowledged Wilmer’s lack of sexual arousal from the images. She emphasized that he was not deemed fit for imprisonment, citing concerns about his emotional maturity. Instead, she imposed a three-year community order, warning that any breach would result in a harsher penalty. The judge also made it clear that Wilmer’s behavior was unacceptable and that he must adhere strictly to the conditions set forth.
Wilmer was placed on the sex offenders’ register, with restrictions preventing him from having unsupervised contact with anyone under 18. Additionally, an order was issued for the destruction of his computer to prevent further access to such material. He was also ordered to pay £540 in prosecution costs within three months.
Supporters, including family friends like Helen Davis, described Wilmer as “inherently honest” and suggested he was somewhat emotionally immature for his age. Davis remarked that Wilmer appeared “a bit young for his age,” reflecting a perception of his developmental state. Despite the remorse shown, the court’s decision underscores the seriousness of his actions and the need for ongoing supervision and restrictions to protect the community.