Porn pic revenge after dog trashes house

Sean Hall (33) did not get sexual kicks from downloading the shocking one minute film of the abuse of the very young girl from the internet – he was said to be disgusted by it – but sent the images out of spite after he had to get the council to remove the dog.

Hall has now ended up on the sexual offenders’ register for seven years for sending the clip to the animal’s previous owners and leaving them horrified. The case, at Burnley Crown Court, was described by a judge as “extraordinarily odd”.

The defendant, of Kime Street, Burnley, admitted distributing an indecent image of a child, of Category A – the most serious level – last March. He was given 24 weeks in prison, suspended for 12 months. Judge Beverley Lunt said the custodial sentence had to send out a clear message that “nobody can be accessing this kind of site and sending it on”.

Prosecutor Emma Kehoe told the hearing: “The facts of this case are very unusual.” She said early last year, the couple advertised their dog for sale on Gum Tree. A mobile phone number belonging to the wife was put on the advert and a man contacted them, giving his name as Derek, from a withheld number. Arrangements were made to meet at Blackpool Train Station to sell the dog and hand it over. The man provided a mobile phone number.

The couple met Hall and the dog was sold for £150. The woman later received a text message from a number she did not recognise, which read “Hi” and mentioned her 13-year-old daughter looking sexy. The prosecutor continued: “She does have a teenage daughter and there’s a photo of her on her WhatsApp profile.”

She then received an alarming video, depicting what appeared to be an adult male having sexual intercourse with an under-aged girl before receiving a further text message which contained a sexually explicit photo of a dog looking identical to the dog she had sold on.

“Clearly, she was very shocked and concerned and she reported the matter to the police,” said the prosecutor.

Mrs Kehoe said the defendant was arrested after examination of the woman’s phone. He was interviewed and gave no comment. He had no previous convictions of any relevance and no offences on his record for 15 years.

Robert Elias (defending) said he sent the pictures in “stupid, spiteful revenge”. The barrister continued: ”The images of the child and the dog are distressing, unpleasant and awful.”

Mr Elias went on: “It was his way of getting his own back because the dog, which he unwisely bought at a train station, trashed his house. A more stupid way of doing that is hard to imagine.”

The barrister told the court: “Because of the horrid nature of what he did, it does, of course, cross the custody threshold. This is a foolish man with issues and problems, who made a serious mistake. He’s not a sexual offender, but it was an offensive act which would mortally offend any right-taking person.”

Judge Lunt said: “This is an extraordinarily odd case.” She continued: “Why do you send sexual images as a revenge? I don’t get this. It’s about buying a dog. What’s this got to do with children being raped?”

The judge, who told the court Hall had got “real problems,” said: “It’s a nasty thing to do. There’s people here at the end of this, getting this. He won’t have thought it through because of his difficulties, but he will have to live with it.”

Judge Lunt told the defendant: “You downloaded this clip, which lasts just over one minute, not for any sexual gratification, for some weird form of revenge on some people who had sold you a dog which you were unable to manage. It’s totally bizarre behaviour. It must have been severely distressing for them.”

The judge added: “You are not a sexual predator, not a deviant and you are not going to do this again.”