David Arthur Joy

66, Male Custodial - 18m 2007-08-13

Loughborough, Leicestershire

Offender ID: 3b27d792-4820-4fa5-b2e2-cf96cbd0be58

David Arthur Joy
Release status
This offender is likely already released (expected: May 2008)
Guideline: ~75% served for ≥4 years, ~50% otherwise. Estimates only.

Offence Summary

David Arthur Joy, a paedophile and former member of the Paedophile Information Exchange, was jailed for possessing and making over 1,100 indecent images of children, including some in the most severe category involving sadism.

Full Description

David Arthur Joy, a 66-year-old former teacher and prominent member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), was sentenced at Leicester Crown Court for possessing and making indecent images of children. Joy, who had campaigned for the lowering of the age of consent, pleaded guilty to 11 counts related to hardcore child pornography discovered at his home.

The case came to light following coordinated raids by Scotland Yard's paedophile unit on remaining PIE members in 2006. Officers searched Joy's cluttered one-bedroom flat in Loughborough, Leicestershire, where they found 1,129 indecent images involving children as young as one year old. These were stored in files by his bed, between the pages of books, and on two home computers. Several images were classified at 'level 5', the most severe category, which includes depictions of sadism. Additionally, police uncovered photographs believed to have been taken by Joy himself of young children in swimwear on beaches.

Joy's involvement with PIE, an international organisation that viewed children as sexual beings, dated back decades. He served on the group's governing committee. The organisation had previously made headlines in the early 1980s when members faced charges for publishing and sending obscene articles through the post, leading to widespread public concern and a ban lobbied for by MPs to then-Home Secretary Leon Brittan.

At sentencing, Judge Michael Pert QC imposed an indeterminate prison sentence, with a minimum term of 18 months before Joy could be considered for parole. The judge remarked that, given Joy's firmly held beliefs in sexual activity between adults and children—views he described as 'wholly in variance' to society's and 'abhorrent' to most—parole 'may never come'. Joy's criminal history included prior convictions for child sex offences from the 1970s and 1980s, such as attempted rape of a young girl and indecent assault.

In mitigation, defence counsel Steven Gosnell argued that Joy had not touched a child for over 20 years and now lived a reclusive life. However, Detective Constable Richard Morgan of Scotland Yard's paedophile unit described Joy as an 'educated, intelligent man' with an 'unwavering and lifelong-held belief' that he should be able to have sex with children, posing an 'ongoing danger'. Morgan noted the conviction as the 'last piece in the jigsaw', with all leading PIE associates now imprisoned. The case was reported by The Guardian on 13 August 2007.

Location

City: Loughborough
County: Leicestershire

Case Details

Police Force: Metropolitan Police Service
Sentence Length: 18 months (Custodial)
Expected Release: May 2008
Guideline: ~75% served for ≥4 years, ~50% otherwise. Estimates only.
Full Sentence End: February 2009
If served in full. Estimates only.

Name heritage (predicted origin)

Country: United Kingdom
Confidence: 90%

Special Thanks

A huge thank you to Metropolitan Police Service for their tireless dedication in bringing this offender to justice. Your commitment and hard work truly help keep our communities safe, and we are deeply grateful.

Source: guardian.co.uk

Important legal notice

This website publishes information obtained from public sources including courts and police. While we aim to keep information accurate and current, no warranty, assurance, or guarantee is given as to completeness, accuracy, or ongoing availability. Nothing on this website constitutes legal advice.

Users must not use information from this website to harass, intimidate, threaten, discriminate against, or otherwise harm any person. Any such conduct may be unlawful. If you believe any information is inaccurate or requires removal for legal reasons, contact [email protected] and we will review promptly.

By using this website, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.