**Pensioner Jailed After Attempting to Hide Evidence and Mislead Police Over Deleted Files**
A retired man from Llanelli has been sentenced for breaching a court order after attempting to deceive the authorities and erase evidence from his mobile phone. Ian Rimmer, 71, appeared at Swansea Crown Court, where chilling details emerged of his continued disregard for legal restrictions imposed upon him due to a lengthy past involving child sexual abuse material.
The court heard that Rimmer had lied to police regarding the whereabouts of his Samsung Galaxy mobile phone, claiming that he had lost it and had not seen it in months. This assertion was made during a routine, unannounced visit by his designated offender manager in February of this year. Officers, familiar with Rimmer’s history and the court-imposed requirements, found the pensioner’s explanation unconvincing.
Authorities were particularly concerned because under an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO)—put in place in May 2023—Rimmer was required to declare any internet-capable devices in his possession and surrender them for inspection when requested. When pressed for the Samsung phone, Rimmer became visibly agitated, first stating he was unable to find it, then later suggesting he simply needed a few days to search his home.
Following these inconsistent stories, police arrested Rimmer on suspicion of breaching his SHPO and searched his property but could not immediately locate the missing device. Curiously, just two days after his release from custody, Rimmer contacted officers to say he had found the phone under his bed.
A forensic examination of the device revealed that a total of 33 videos and 289 images had been deleted from the phone, with file names referencing popular children’s television programmes. Although the media had been wiped, forensic investigators established that the deletions occurred as recently as February 2024—contradicting Rimmer’s claim not to have seen the phone since Christmas.
Regan Walters, prosecuting, detailed Rimmer’s history of contravention and previous convictions. The court was told that Rimmer had been convicted as far back as 2008, when police discovered approximately 10,000 indecent images of children on his devices. He has a total of seven prior convictions relating to 37 offences, including making and possessing illegal material, and repeatedly breaching orders intended to limit his internet activities.
Notably, the defendant has faced significant custodial consequences before. In 2008, he was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment and made subject to a life-long Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). By 2010, those restrictions were again violated, earning him an extended eight-year sentence, split between custody and licence. Despite various interventions, his non-compliance continued, resulting in further convictions in 2018 and, just last year, a conditional discharge alongside an updated indefinite SHPO.
Rimmer’s barrister, Emily Bennet, acknowledged her client’s repeated offending and his admission of guilt regarding the latest breach. She noted that Rimmer felt “isolated from his wife” and harboured deep fears about further time in custody, as he had largely complied with other aspects of his most recent community order.
However, Judge Huw Rees, presiding over the sentencing, criticised Rimmer for his “fabricated” account concerning his missing phone—a dishonest narrative that he had also presented to the probation service authoring his pre-sentence report. With credit given for a guilty plea, the judge handed down a 22-month prison sentence, of which Rimmer will be required to serve at least half before being released on licence.
The court did not impose an additional penalty for a breach of the earlier conditional discharge, and instead revoked the existing community order. This judgement underscores the seriousness with which the justice system treats attempts to subvert legal restrictions designed to safeguard children and monitor those with a history of sexual offences.
This case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by probation and law enforcement teams in monitoring high-risk individuals and ensuring that stringent orders such as SHPOs are adhered to. The situation also prompts broader discussions around the effectiveness of current systems in deterring repeat offences and protecting the public.