FORMER prison officer Peter Gwynfryn Williams has been jailed for two and a half years for possessing indecent images of little girls.
Williams – who resigned from his partnership in a funeral business after his arrest – was also ordered to register with the police as a sex offender for life.
Mold Crown Court heard how he had been jailed for four and a half years for similar offences – and the sexual assault of a child – at York Crown Court in 2008.
After his release, Williams, aged 56, of St George’s Drive, Prestatyn, viewed images of child sex abuse again.
He admitted six charges of making and possessing indecent images of children which put him in breach of a SOPO – a sexual offences prevention order.
Williams through his barrister said that he could not understand why he had done such a thing again and said that he needed treatment for what he regarded as an illness.
But the judge said that he had done it before, he had been given the chance of therapy, and it now had to be immediate custody.
A fresh indefinite SOPO was made and he was ordered to register as a sex offender for life.
Judge Philip Hughes told him: “The children involved were youngsters aged between seven and 11.
“The aggravating feature of this case is not only the abuse of the children who were photographed, but that you have done it before."
Emmalyne Downing, defending, said that the SOPO restricted his use of the Internet and prevented him from taking or downloading photographs of children.
But police found that his internet user address had been involved in the obtaining of child porn and a search warrant was carried out at his address in January last year).
Interviewed at the time, he said he lived on his own, no one else had access to his house, he had no knowledge of indecent images and he said he had not committed any offences. No illegal images would be discovered on his computer equipment, he said.
When 269 images were found and search terms such as “Lolita” and “young models” were discovered, he was re-interviewed in February of this year – but made no comment.
File sharing and file wiping software was found but there was no evidence that items had been shared or stored elsewhere.
Neil Gunn, defending, said that his client was an intelligent man who was the first to admit that such activity was wholly inappropriate.
Seeking to view such images was abhorrent, he conceded.
“He fails to understand how he could allow himself to be placed in this position,” Mr Gunn explained.
Mr Gunn said that in every other way the defendant was an upstanding member of the community.
He had spent years in the RAF and had worked at various professions including a prison officer.
The offences had been committed in isolation which was a feature of his difficulties.