Jamie Martin convicted of possessing indecent images of children
A university student who tried to blame his father for child sex abuse images on his computer has walked free after a judge decided his “academic and other life progress” would be blighted if sent to jail.
Jamie Martin denied possessing hundreds of sordid still images, as well as movie clips, but was convicted on “overwhelming” evidence.
He remains in “total denial”.
Judge David Griffith-Jones QC told the 21-year-old, of Buckthorne Road, Minster: “It’s a great shame you didn’t see sense and pursued the matter through to a contested trial.”
He added: “A sentence of imprisonment is demanded. Nothing less will do.
“But I recognise that if required to serve a sentence of imprisonment immediately you would be unable to complete a degree towards which you are currently working and your academic and other life progress would to some extent be blighted.
“You are evidently an intelligent and bright young man.
“I very much hope your experience from this case has been a salutary one and you will learn an important lesson.”
Martin denied seven offences of making and possessing indecent images of children, but was convicted at Maidstone Crown Court.
He was found to have 37 movie clips in the most serious category on October 26 last year, 21 in the next serious category and eight still images in the lowest category.
He was also in possession of 56 still images in the highest category between February 1 and October 27 last year, 96 in the next category and 692 in the lowest category.
Some of the children in the material were aged only one to three. Martin deleted them after discovering his father had been arrested.
“You initially pointed the finger at your father until it became abundantly clear he couldn’t have been responsible,” said the judge.
“You then resiled from that position.
“It is also right to highlight you sought to involve family and friends in providing you with a manufactured alibi in relation to particular times and dates.
“That element of your defence did not survive scrutiny and unravelled swiftly.
“Apart from the dark secret this case has revealed, you present as a thoroughly decent young man.
“In committing this offence and failing to accept responsibility, you have let not just yourself down but also those close to you.
“It is sad to see from the pre-sentence report you continued to present as being in total denial.
“That is a great shame as it means you can’t qualify for the kind of remedial work you would benefit from.”
It was said Martin’s denials stemmed from feeling shame and failing to come to terms with his actions.
But Judge Griffith-Jones said: “In the circumstances I am prepared to take what might be thought to be a lenient course by suspending the inevitable prison sentence which must follow.”
A rehabilitation activity requirement for 20 days was imposed so that the probation service could monitor Martin’s progress “in the hope your denials will soften in time and you will mollify your views so that the risks from further offending are reduced or eliminated”.
He will also have to do 200 hours unpaid work. A tagged curfew from 9pm to 6am was imposed for four months.
His name will appear on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years.