Related Articles
A pervert with more than 13,000 vile images of children walked free because he was not charged with the right offence and it took him more than two years to get him to court.
A judge demanded answers from police and prosecutors as he handed former special constable David Andrews a suspended prison sentence.
Judge Robert Linford criticised delays of two and a half years to bring the case to court.
He also said the Crown Prosecution Service had not charged the 65-year-old correctly with a more serious crime despite his apparent admission in interview.
Judge Linford told Andrews: “You have not got me to thank for the fact that you are not serving a sentence of imprisonment but the prosecution and the police.”
The same judge only two weeks ago branded delays in another indecent images case as “astonishing”.
(Image: Avalon.red)
Two police agencies, two forensic bodies and the CPS were involved in the investigation and the prosecution.
South West Forensics, which normally examines indecent images, said it was inundated with a large volume of work.
Former Royal Mail worker Andrews pleaded guilty to possession of more than 13,000 indecent images of children, including almost 4,000 showing children being sexually abused.
Some he downloaded over four years between 2014 and 2018 showed babies being raped.
Andrews also admitted having extreme pornography and prohibited images of children.
He was handed a two-year prison sentence suspended for two years at Plymouth Crown Court on Thursday.
But Judge Linford said he would have gone to jail if he had been quickly investigated, charged and convicted with distributing indecent images of children.
He added: “The reason I am taking this step (suspending his sentence) is because there is a significant prospect of your rehabilitation and two other factors are on my mind.
(Image: Erin Black)
“You are charged only with the possession of this material and there is the totally unacceptable delay of two and a half years since the initial investigation and the time you are having to face the music.
“You have not been efficiently investigated and effectively charged and the fact you have not is on the face of it the responsibility of the prosecution and police.”
Judge Linford heard that police first had the information that Category A images – showing children being sexually abused – were being downloaded in February 2017.
A search warrant was obtained and his home in Ivybridge was raided on January 30 2018.
The judge said that the 11-month delay “beggars belief”.
Andrews was then released under investigation and there was an 18-month delay between his police interview and charges.
(Image: File image)
The court heard that he had effectively admitted possessing the images upon his arrest.
Judge Linford said that Andrews had also confessed to distributing or sharing images online – a far more serious offence.
He added that was supported by the forensic evidence from the examination of Andrews’ computer.
Judge Linford said that he could only sentence him for the offences he had faced on the indictment.
Andrews quickly pleaded guilty once in court and was sentenced within weeks.
Judge Linford asked Devon and Cornwall Police and the CPS to provide formal explanations for the way the case was handled.
(Image: Pixabay)
A spokesperson for the CPS said: “The court has asked CPS South West to provide a response in relation to the charging decision of David Andrews, this is something we are currently looking in to.”
Devon & Cornwall Police said the National Crime Agency passed on information of the crime on November 16 2017.
Its spokesperson said: “A series of risk assessments and police enquiries were carried out over the following weeks to ensure the warrant was carried out effectively.
“The warrant and arrest took place on 30 January 2018. The appropriate policing enquiries continued and this included submission of exhibits for forensic analysis, which took place in April 2018.”
The exhibits were passed to the South West Forensic Services.
A spokesperson said: “Due to the large demand of high priority cases in the D&C Data Forensics Unit, and the inevitable extended delay that this would cause to this case (already approaching three months), a decision was made to send this case to an external forensic service provider in order to carry out the computer analytical work quicker.
“Unfortunately the external company were also experiencing a spike in demand and so they took over three months to complete the work, which is normally processed much quicker.
“The current change programme within SW Forensics is seeking to invest further in the D&C digital forensics unit in order to cope with the increasing demand.”
