JUDGES have ruled a paedophile is so dangerous he CAN be locked away for life.

David Pates, who described children he knew in a book of his “fantasies”, has lost an appeal against his potentially lifelong jail term.

Pates, 66, of The Orchard, Powick, near Worcester, was put behind bars indefinitely for public protection (IPP) at Worcester Crown Court in 2007 after he admitted indecent assault on a child and making and possessing indecent images of children. The open-ended punishment, which is almost identical to a life sentence, means Pates will only be released from jail if he can prove he is no longer “dangerous”.

Lawyers for the pensioner claimed the sentence was too harsh and that Pates should have been dealt with using a straightforward jail term, giving him a definite release date.

But three senior judges, sitting at London’s Court of Appeal, ruled there was enough evidence to suggest Pates was a risk to young girls, and upheld the indefinite sentence.

Judge Clement Goldstone QC told the court police found more than 11,000 images and videos of child abuse on Pates’ computer in 2006, many of which were at the most depraved level.

One child was photographed locked in a kennel and Pates stash of child porn also included 258 movies.

As well as images downloaded from the internet, police found photos of children taken by Pates himself, some dating back to the 1980s.

The sickening pictures led police to set up a special helpline for potential victims around Worcester, or near Pates’ previous home in Naunton, near Upton-upon-Severn.

The judge said Pates had written an “alarming” novel, in which he “fantasised about abusing young children”. The book contained references to real youngsters who Pates knew.

Pates, who had a history of attacks on young girls, was also sentenced for indecently assaulting a nine-year-old girl in the late 1990s.

He was also convicted of six indecent assaults on girls in 1984 when he worked at a swimming pool.

James Dixon, for Pates, told the Appeal Court that the indefinite sentence was “manifestly excessive” because the judge had overestimated the risk Pates posed to children.

But Judge Goldstone, sitting with Lord Justice Leveson and Mr Justice Openshaw, ruled that the offences, coupled with Pates’ history, justified the IPP sentence.

He told the court: “The judge was entitled to conclude on the evidence before him that the imprisonment for public protection sentence was merited because of the danger of him moving on to further contact offences.”