September 2021: Judge Brian Cummings, QC, said because of the “extensive” aggravating features in the case, sentencing guidelines indicated a starting point of two and a half years in prison.
Giving him full one third credit for his early guilty pleas, he then reduced the sentence to 20 months in prison.
Judge Cummings said he had considered whether Martin’s sentence could be suspended, following guidelines on whether offenders can be spared jail.
However, he concluded that despite the prospect of rehabilitation, because of the risk Martin posed to the public, only an immediate prison sentence was appropriate.
The judge ordered Martin to sign on the Sex Offenders Register and to comply with a Sexual Harm Prevention Order indefinitely.
Paedophile had dead dog sex image in his vile collection
A paedophile with child rape videos was also caught with extreme porn of a person having sex with a dead dog.
Jamie Martin’s vile collection – amassed over a six-year period – featured 129 indecent images of young sex abuse victims.
The 34-year-old, of Eastbank Street, Southport, today appeared in the dock at Liverpool Crown Court for sentencing.
Martin previously admitted three counts of downloading and one count of possessing indecent images of children.
He also pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a prohibited image of a child and one count of possessing extreme pornography.
According to the latter charge, the extreme porn portrayed a person “performing an act of intercourse with a dead animal, namely a dog”, which was “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.
Nardeen Nemat, prosecuting, said the indecent images of children included 22 Category A images – the most serious category, involving child rape – of which nine were videos.
She said there were 13 Category B images, of which four were videos, and 90 Category C files, of which nine were videos.
The judge, Recorder Ian Unsworth, QC, said Category A files were at the “extreme” upper end of child sex abuse images.
The court heard they carry a starting point in sentencing guidelines of 12 months in prison, before aggravating and mitigating features are considered, which can increase or decrease the sentence.
Ms Nemat said one aggravating feature of the case was that the Category A collection included videos.
Recorder Unsworth said: “There is some reference to the defendant being active, with his involvement in a network.”
He added: “He candidly admits to having shared images.”
The court heard the period of time over which they were possessed was another aggravating feature, with Martin having downloaded the files between January 14, 2014 and May 12, 2020.
Martin, who had no previous convictions, was unrepresented in court, after his case was previously adjourned at a hearing earlier this summer in order for him to obtain legal representation.
He today told the judge he had been refused legal aid and couldn’t “afford” a solicitor or barrister.
He said: “I can’t afford it by myself.”
The judge asked Martin whether he had looked into the “direct access scheme”, which he said was a way barristers can be instructed without instructing a solicitor as well, but the defendant said he was unaware of it.
Recorder Unsworth said: “This is a serious matter and as you’ve just heard, on the face of it these offences cross the custody threshold, in other words, they are sufficiently serious that the court will inevitably be considering a custodial sentence.
“Therefore it’s vital if at all possible that you are able to exhaust all opportunities before, if necessary, the court proceeds to sentence with you unpresented. I have a duty to ensure there is fairness to you.”
The judge put the case back until later in the afternoon, when Martin reappeared in the dock and said he had tried to obtain a barrister to represent him by ringing local chambers, but was told none were available today.
Recorder Unsworth adjourned sentencing until August 25 and remanded Martin on bail until that date after confirming it with him and the prosecution.
Martin said: “I work but I will get someone to cover my shift.”
The judge reminding him that securing legal representation for that hearing must be his “absolute priority”.
He said: “I have to warn you, if you don’t have representation on the next occasion there is a strong likelihood the case will proceed to sentence.”