POLICE who examined the phone of a young Carlisle man found it contained bestiality pictures and an indecent video of a child.

The defendant’s lawyer told the city’s Rickergate court that the now adult defendant could well have been aged just 17 when the images involved were received and there was no suggestion he sought out the pictures.

The defendant admitted two counts of possessing extreme pornographic images and one of possessing an indecent video of a child – classified as Category A, the most serious kind.

Prosecutor George Shelley said the defendant was arrested as part of an unrelated investigation last year and as a result police investigated his phone.

He provided police with the PIN number for the device and police then found the images – a total of 12 bestiality images and the video, which involved a boy aged 12 or 13 performing a sexual act with an animal.

All the images arose as part of Snapchat “conversations” the defendant had with friends, beginning in July 2021, when the defendant was a youth.

He is now aged 20.

Mr Shelley said that a police officer was very experienced in the management of sexual offenders had advised that there was no need to impose a sexual harm prevention order.

Jack Lovell, defending, said the defendant had no involvement in the criminal justice system whatsoever until a year ago. When asked to provide his phone, he was “fully cooperative” with the police.

The lawyer said: “In relation to the offences, he said he has limited recollection of the actual images… It would appear the images were sent by friends within a group.”

Those images had been automatically saved to the defendant’s phone after they were opened and he had not appreciated that fact.

“There is a clear distinction between this case and the cases of indecent images which ordinarily come before this court,” continued the lawyer.

“There is no suggestion that he actively sought out those images online and no suggestion that the police found any [incriminating] search terms. Essentially, those images were received, viewed and then [automatically] saved.

“They were seen between peers of a similar age.

“Whether it was to shock, out of wrongly placed humour, we don’t know. There is nothing to suggest there was sexual gratification behind it.”

Prosecutions for one indecent child image do not ordinarily come before the court, said Mr Lovell, who noted that there was no police request for a sexual harm prevention order.

“The fact that they are not applying for this order shows they have no concerns whatsoever in terms of this and the public going forward,” he added.

Magistrates noted that the defendant was a man of previous good character and ruled that there is a good prospect for rehabilitation. They noted also the defendant’s lack of maturity at the time of the offending.

But the presiding magistrate told the defendant: “We were concerned when reading in the report that you perhaps don’t understand the exploitation and abuse that arises out of sharing indecent and obscene images.

“It’s really important for all of us in society to realise that and how there are wider consequences for society, particularly for vulnerable people.”

They imposed a four-month jail term, suspended for a year. The sentence includes ten rehabilitation activity days. Magistrates did not impose a sexual harm prevention order or put the defendant on the Sex Offender Register.

They said this was because they could not be satisfied that the defendant was over 18 when he committed the offences. The defendant must pay £85 costs, and a £154 victim surcharge.

The NSPCC has a website which explains the dangers involved to young people of sending or sharing indecent images online. To find out more, click on this NSPCC link.

The Internet Watch Foundation also encourages people to report any child abuse content they may find online. To find out more, click on the link.