Judge said he had a ‘stark choice’ as he jailed paedophile dad at Preston Crown Court

Hunar Hamad pleaded guilty to three charges of making indecent images of children and two of possessing extreme pornography and was jailed for 18 months.

The 31-year-old from Brierfield was also made the subject of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order which will restrict his contact with youngsters and his use of the internet for the next 10 years.

The court heard police discovered a huge haul of indecent videos and still images on his mobile phone when they were questioning him at a house in Halifax Road, Brierfield in 2024 about another unconnected matter which was not proceeded with.

They also found a lengthy conversation with another man on the app Telegram discussing child porn. Amongst the grotesque videos was one of a six-month old girl being sexually abused while being held down by an adult male.

Another featured a boy aged between eight and 10. In the conversation he had commented on one video using a “drooling” emoji.

When interviewed by police unemployed Hamad, of Violet Street, gave “no comment” answers to all questions. But he did admit the phone was his.

Because of his limited English, Hamad had a Kurdish interpreter in the dock with him to explain what was being said and done.

Barrister Nicholas Clarke, defending, said the offences he had admitted were not matters where there had been any contact between him and a child.

He said his client “accepts his offending – but to a very limited extent”. He accepted he was in possession of the videos and still images.

“This is a defendant who has no employment and something of an inability to make a constructive use of his time. He is in a house of multiple occupation and in receipt (of benefits) of £45 a week.

“It is not beyond the wit of most that that would lead a man of his age to invest in (viewing) pornography.

“There is no evidence of him thinking of this sort of material, but with him being provided with it and reacting to it.

“He seems to accept the criminal nature of the videos and photographs but does not accept the effect it would have on those involved.”

Mr Clarke said Recorder Kristian Cavanagh had a “stark choice” between an immediate custodial term or a suspended sentence. If he opted for prison it would not assist Hamad, with his lack of English, in putting his life back on track.

“It will simply be a punishment,” he said. “Two years spent on bail may be something of a punishment in itself.”

He added that an order for unpaid work would better allow him to put something back into the community.

“Within the Islamic community he is someone who is able to conscientiously use his time in a positive fashion. He is capable of changing.”

But Recorder Cavanagh said the extent of the offending, with the high number of abhorrent videos and images on his phone, meant that an immediate prison sentence was justified.

He said the Sexual Harm Prevention Order was necessary and proper to protect children and the wider public. If he breached that order then he could be sent to prison for up to a further five years.

The judge said a pre-sentence report compiled by the probation service was “worrying” because he had appeared to minimise his behaviour.

He had denied having a sexual interest in children. In reality he had been actively involved in the image-sharing “Ultimately, I am concerned about you reoffending.

Everything I have read and heard (about you) I find the only appropriate punishment can be served by immediate prison.”