A SALESMAN said to be addicted to internet images showing “graphic abuse” of children aged as young as three was spared jail.
Burnley Crown Court heard how Steven Dilley, 42, told police he had been looking at things he should not have.
He swore he was not a risk to children but a judge said he had been as without people like him there would be no market for the pictures.
Dilley also viewed obscene images of sex with animals as well as almost 200 vile videos and still pictures of children.
He said a large part of it was down to his desire for thrills and told police after his arrest: “Deep down, I always knew this day was coming.”
The defendant had been caught after officers arrived to raid his then home on Lansdowne Close, Burnley, at 7.20am on November 22 last year.
Dilley admitted six counts of making an indecent photo of a child and one allegation of possessing extreme pornography in March last year.
He was given nine months in jail, suspended for two years, with 24 months' supervision and must attend the Internet Sex Offenders' Treatment Programme.
The defendant also received an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order and was ordered to sign the Sex Offenders' Register for 10 years.
The court was told Dilley had looked at 63 still images at level one, the least serious level, six still pictures at level two, 33 still images at level three, 47 still photos at level four, 30 video images at level four and one still picture at level five. They showed abuse of children aged between about three and 10, mostly females. He had also viewed 12 extreme images.
Stephen Parker, prosecuting, said when Dilley was arrested, he said: “I have looked at things that I shouldn't have looked at and then deleted them.”
He said he had been stupid and was sorry. Police recovered the laptop.
Mr Parker said when the defendant was asked about the background to the offences, he said at some point he had wanted to get help.
Richard Taylor, for Dilley, said he was a man of previous good character.
Sentencing, Judge Simon Newell said it not been correct for the defendant to say he was not a risk to children as he had been indirectly.
The judge added: “These children would not be abused in his way and damaged psychologically and physically unless there were people like you who are the market for these images.”