The rapes were committed without the woman’s knowledge while she was ‘unconscious’ after taking sleeping pills and drinking alcohol.

The attacks were recorded by Boyles and saved on his computer, the vile videos only found when police investigated intelligence that indecent images of children had been downloaded at the address.

The frail, small and stooped 69-year-old of William Tennant Way, Upton, looked far older than his years as he hobbled into court using a walking stick.

He had already pleading guilty to 13 offences, admitting a further charge of rape and voyeurism before he was sentenced.

The defendant, who suffers from asthma and COPD, showed no emotion when the sentence was announced by Judge Nicolas Cartwright for the offences which happened between 2004 and 2011.

The other charges he admitted included voyeurism against both the first victim and a second, also an adult female, using secret cameras to record them.

The pensioner, previously of Honeybourne and Broadway, also made indecent ‘pseudo photographs’ of a child, Photoshopping a man’s genitals onto an image of a child to make it look like he was having sex with the girl, aged four, calling the file ‘sleeping princess’.

He admitted making indecent images of children at category A (the most serious kind showing adults raping children), B and C and possession of eight prohibited images. We had previously reported how he admitted making indecent photos/pseudo photographs of children – 25 still images at category A and 11 at category B. He also pleaded guilty to possession of eight prohibited images between May 1, 2010 and April 11, 2019.

The pensioner admitted two further counts of making indecent photographs of children at category A (12 moving images and 11 still images at category A).

He admitted two counts of making indecent images at category B (two moving images and 11 still images) and one count of making 42 still images at category C.

The offences came to light when police searched the defendant’s previous address and seized his computers, finding videos of the defendant either raping or attempting to rape a woman on four separate occasions.

One of the victims described feeling ‘disgusted and sick’ at the knowledge she had been filmed naked without her consent. However, the woman who had been raped said she had not suffered psychological harm, describing the incidents as ‘non-consensual intercourse’ rather than rape.

In total he made 33 videos and created 35 stills of the second victim of voyeurism. In police interview the defendant said of the child abuse images: “It was curiosity really – certainly not something I would physically take part in or do.”

He also told officers he had been viewing indecent images of children for about 15 years.

He said of the images found on his computers: “I’m not trying to put it on some high intellectual plain but it’s some form of art, whether you like or not.”

In a later interview he said of the doctored images of him having sex with a child that no harm was caused to anyone and said: “It’s purely a product of my imagination.”

Boyles said of the sexual attacks on the sleeping woman: “I would not call it rape.”

The woman who was raped spoke in court and said: “I have not seen the video of the rape and do not wish to do so. It would rather label it non-consensual (sex) than rape.”

She told the judge she had suffered ‘no psychological harm’ as a result of what happened.

The defendant had one previous conviction for driving with excess alcohol. There was no evidence that he had administered the alcohol or sleeping pills to the victim but rather he ‘capitalised’ on her unconscious state to carry out the rapes.

Judge Cartwright said the offences were aggravated in that they involved different forms of rape and that the offence was ‘repeated on several occasions’. However, he gave him a third off the length of his sentence because of his early guilty plea and discounted a further six months to reflect the tougher prison regime during the Covid-19 pandemic (fewer visits and more time for inmates in their cells).

The judge said indecent images of children were ‘ghastly’ and added: “The harm is that real children somewhere in the world are the victims of the things that are being filmed.”

The judge also imposed a sexual harm prevention order which will remain in force for the rest of the defendant’s life and restricts his contact with female children under the age of 16.

As a sex offender, Boyles will also be subject to notification requirements for the rest of his life.

Navikas also admitted at the time to making indecent photographs of children between the same dates – 422 at category A, 188 at category B and 747 at category C.

On Thursday Navikas returned to Worcester Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to fresh offences of making more than 400 indecent images of children.

The 38-year-old admitted making 38 at category A – the most serious level – between January 1, 2018, and November 27, 2020.

Navikas also pleaded guilty to making 85 indecent images at category B, 238 at category C and one count of possessing an prohibited image of a child between the same dates.

Prosecutor Melanie Winterflood said that after a police investigation they found images were uploaded via a KIK account registered to Navikas.

The defendant also admitted possession of 10 prohibited images of a child. Lee Egan, defending, said: “This defendant is of previous good character and is remorseful. He wishes to accept his guilt immediately.”

Mr Egan said his client, who spoke through a Lithuanian interpreter, also had ‘no overseas convictions either’. The court heard that the images were found on four different devices.

The prohibited photos were described as ‘spy shots’ and the indecent images were downloaded from the internet. “The child (who was sexually assaulted) is asleep in his bed” said the Alexandra Bull, prosecuting. She added that the culpability was A (the highest) ‘given it was recorded’.

Judge Nicholas Cole said: “These are serious matters which are likely to cross the threshold for a custodial sentence. But I’m not going to sentence you today because it’s appropriate for the court to have more information about you. I’m therefore directing there is a pre-sentence report from the probation service.

That report will assist the court as to the risk you pose of reoffending. It will be an all options report and it will assist the court in determining whether there’s any alternative to a sentence of immediate custody.”

He made it clear that, in adjourning sentence, he made no promises as to what the sentence would be.

“The most likely sentence is one of immediate custody. That will be a matter for the judge once all the information is available,” he said.

As part of bail he had to surrender his passport and must have no contact with any child under 16. He is also subject to sex offender notification requirements.

A condition of bail was added that he co-operate with the probation service in the preparation of a report.

In a victim personal statement she described how the abuse left her feeling ‘numb’. She said: “I felt felt lifeless. I lost myself so much I didn’t even recognise myself.”

The 43-year-old defendant, who had been living in Shrub Hill, Worcester, was convicted unanimously by a jury following a trial held in Coventry after a jury saw through what the judge called called the defendant’s ‘trickery’.

The Polish national, described by the judge as an economic migrant, now faces automatic deportation after he was convicted of five counts involving sexual offences against the same child who cannot be identified for legal reasons.

Suwalski, who had been of previous good character, was sentenced for rape of a child under 13, two counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, voyeurism and engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child.

Suwalski’s abuse happened between November 25, 2007 and August 23, 2017. The guilty verdicts were delivered by the jury on April 9 this year.

The victim went on to describe how she was left feeling ‘alone and vulnerable’ and how the abuse had been ’emotionally draining’. She added: “I was desensitised to any emotion. I felt like I wasn’t alive.”

She also said: “When I looked in the mirror, I didn’t feel real.”

Judge James Burbidge QC, sentencing, described how the defendant had hidden a spy camera in an air freshener and had used it to take more than 10,500 photographs.

Suwalski claimed the camera was to make sure the victim did not self-harm. However, Judge Burbidge said: “You did it for your own sexual gratification.”

The judge concluded there was no evidence that the defendant intended to share the photographs with paedophiles. He told the the defendant: “Since 2007 you have had a dark secret.”

Suwalski was told he had abused the girl ‘in the grossest of ways’ and categorised him as ‘an offender of particular concern’.

Judge Burbidge said an interview with a probation officer suggested Suwalski was ‘still in denial’. “That is a cause for concern and should be for the Parole Board in due course,” he said.

The judge sentenced him to 17 years for the rape with a one year extension on the licence period to reflect that he identified Suwalski as an offender of particular concern but said he stepped back from classifying him as a dangerous offender in law.

He must serve at least two thirds of the sentence in custody before the case is referred to the Parole Board.

Concurrent sentences of six years, seven years, 18 months and two years were imposed for the other counts on the indictment. The total sentence therefore remains one of 17 years.

“You will do doubt be contacted by the debarring authority to say you should not work with children,” said Judge Burbidge.

Judge Burbidge also imposed an indefinite sexual harm prevention order which prohibits him from having unsupervised contact or communication of any kind with any child under 16 other than is inadvertent or not reasonably avoidable in the course of daily life and unless he has the prior consent of the child’s parents or guardian who must have full knowledge of his conviction and the express prior approval of social services.

He is further prohibited from living anywhere where any child under 16 is also living and from possessing any device which can store still or moving images which is disguised as something else.

West Mercia Police was asked to supply a custody photo of the defendant but said they were unable to provide one.