A paedophile who shared videos of a toddler being sexually molested was told by a Worcester judge he must go straight to jail for his 'dreadful' actions to deter others.
Daniel Ballinger was jailed for 22 months for distributing indecent images of children, including a toddler being sexually assaulted, when he appeared at Worcester Crown Court on Tuesday.
The plumber's pleas to be spared jail because of his mental health and finances were overruled. A 10 year sexual harm prevention order will restrict his contact with children and notification requirements apply to him as a convicted sex offender.
We can now bring you further details about why the judge - Recorder Martin Butterworth - decided to jail the offender despite pleas from Ballinger's advocate, Simon Gurney. The suited defendant had his head in his hands and wept during the hearing.
The 33-year-old of Homestead, Droitwich admitted two offences of distributing indecent images of children, including category A images (considered the most serious within the guidelines) and an attempt to publish an obscene article in Kik and Snapchat between May 17 and May 25 this year. He had been communicating with an undercover officer online as part of a sting.
Mr Gurney handed up references on his client's behalf, suggesting unpaid work and a curfew as an alternative to custody and arguing that the offending took place over a short period of time.
One of the videos involved a baby aged 18 to 24 months being sexually abused in a way too graphic to describe. Mr Gurney acknowledged this was 'an image of particular seriousness'.
However, he said: "It was a single image, sent to a single person who was in fact an undercover police officer. There was no distribution to the wider public."
Ballinger, who had no previous convictions, was only arrested after an 'innocent man' had first been blamed for the crime because he had given Ballinger the password to his household internet router - the IP address that was later linked to the offences.
Mr Gurney argued there was 'no suggestion there was any attempt to put the blame on someone else for what he had done'. During mitigation he described how Ballinger served in the Royal Navy, working as an aircraft technician and had completed humanitarian relief missions.
He told the judge Ballinger had used pornography since the age of 13 and that depression and anxiety arose from his circumstances during the pandemic, including losing his job.
"His addiction to pornography and chatrooms plainly became entrenched. He is adamant that the discussion was fantasy. He had no intention to act on any of the discussion he took part in. He's utterly disgusted by his behaviour" said Mr Gurney.
The advocate went on to argue that Ballinger had 'autistic traits' which may explain why he was predisposed to chatting online and was 'easily led'. He also said Ballinger did have empathy for the victims, had accepted responsibility and was determined not to offend again.
He argued that jailing Ballinger would cause financial hardship for his wife and child, including the family's ability to pay the mortgage. Further to this he argued there was 'a realistic prospect of rehabilitation' and that the public interest was 'best served by a period in the community undertaking rehabilitative work with the probation service'. He added: "Prison will impact negatively on his mental health and undermines any attempts to rehabilitate him. I concede these are serious offences. This isn't a case where an immediate custodial sentence is necessary in my submission."
But Recorder Butterworth said: "Your case, Mr Ballinger, is an example - sadly very frequently encountered in the criminal courts - of a defendant whose life and conduct in many ways is commendable but who commits dreadful and grave offences in which children are the victims for reasons which are very difficult to comprehend for those who learn of them."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel