On the April 15, whilst at court, Davies was also arrested, charged and remanded for the offences of false imprisonment and assault.

He has also been served with a non-molestation order and a Prohibited Steps Order.

It came after a police appeal to locate Davies on March 31 in which his links to Worcester and Dudley in the West Midlands were highlighted.

The 27-year-old admitted three charges of making indecent images of children and three charges of distributing them to others. The offences all occurred between April 16 and May 3 last year.

In total he made (downloaded) five images at category A which are the worst kind and show children being raped and other forms of serious sexual assault.

He also had five images at category B and three at category C, all recovered from his Apple iPhone 6.

Gould also admitted three charges of distributing such images at categories A (one image), B (five images) and C (two images) over the same dates.

Gould had been living at Malcolm Avenue, Bromsgrove but has since moved to Bracken Grove in Catshill, Bromsgrove.

Melanie Winterflood, prosecuting, said the offences were beyond the sentencing powers of magistrates and invited matters to be committed to Worcester Crown Court.

Ms Winterflood said police were alerted to Gould’s IP address because of the downloading of indecent images of children and a warrant was executed.

“Mr Gould fled the property when police arrived. They gave chase and he was seen to throw a mobile phone away. He was caught. He was detained” she said.

Although no images could be recovered from the discarded phone, images were found on a a phone in his van.

In interview he made full admissions to downloading those images.

“He explained he was running away because he was in a state of panic and he was frightened” said Ms Winterflood. He explained in interview ‘he knew it was wrong’ but had been ‘intrigued’.

The mobile phone has since been forensically analysed. A number of aggravating features have already been identified including the ‘age and vulnerability of the children’ and that these were ‘young children’. A ‘large number of different victims’ have also been identified, a further aggravating feature.

A pre-sentence report was ordered by the probation service ahead of the hearing at Worcester Crown Court on May 14.

The defendant was bailed to attend that hearing.

He was made subject to a three year community order after the judge said the defendant’s engagement with therapy meant there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.

Whyley must also complete 40 rehabilitation activity requirement days and an accredited sex offender programme. Whyley was also ordered to pay £750 compensation to the victim who identified him taking her picture in a Worcester High Street Shop.

He was placed on a sexual harm prevention order for five years and placed on an electronically monitored curfew for four months between 9pm and 6am.

A 16-year-old girl, who read out her victim personal statement in court, raised the alarm at H&M in Worcester on August 16, 2019 after she heard the camera click, bringing his depraved campaign to an end which included recording women having sex in their homes.

The 32-year-old admitted voyeurism, two charges of recording an image under clothing to observe without consent and operating equipment beneath the clothing of another without consent.

The photos were taken mainly in Worcester but also in Malvern and Stourbridge between June 26 and August 15, 2019.

A 16-year-old girl raised the alarm at H&M in Worcester on August 16, 2019 after she heard the camera click, bringing his depraved campaign to an end which included recording women having sex in their homes.

The 32-year-old admitted voyeurism, two charges of recording an image under clothing to observe without consent and operating equipment beneath the clothing of another without consent.

The photos were taken mainly in Worcester but also in Malvern and Stourbridge between June 26 and August 15, 2019.

Ralph Robyns-Landricombe, prosecuting, said the 16-year-old who raised the alarm noticed Whyley passing near her in the shop while she looked at clothes and later saw him rushing towards the bottom of the escalator before he stood close to her on the next step down, holding his mobile phone in his right hand.

“She then stated she heard a clicking sound which she associated with the taking of a picture on a mobile phone,” said the prosecutor.

She saw the camera app was visible on his mobile phone but did not challenge him. However, she returned to the shop and was able to give a description of him to police.

His movements were traced using Worcester city centre’s CCTV to a building owned by the University of Worcester.

Whyley of Lavender Lane, Stourbridge was identified as a sub-contractor for the university who tested fire alarms.

Police arrested him at Worcester’s University Arena and his phone was seized. The GoPro camera had taken 6,436 images and officers identified 250 separate female victims.

However, only the woman who reported him can be formally identified. An officer was able to identify almost all the locations as being in Worcester.

A search of the company vehicle Whyley was using revealed two pairs of shoes with holes cut in the toes and an SD card which belonged to the defendant.

On the card were 94 images and videos recorded through the windows of homes including ‘images of women either topless or in their underwear’ and of women ‘getting changed or in a state of undress’ and also of a couple engaged in sexual intercourse.

In interview he stated that he was not targeting the girl in H&M but that it was ‘an opportunistic moment’ and that he had viewed upskirting videos on a pornography website.

He stated he did not want to say how long he had been doing this for ‘as he’s ashamed’.

The father has also told his partner about what he had done ‘but not anyone else’. “He said he felt sick when he learned the girl (in the shop) was only 16” said Mr Robyns-Landricombe.

When he was told by police that there were 6,436 images recorded on the GoPro, Whyley replied: “Jesus, that’s horrible.”

He stated he never took photographs of people he knew – they were always strangers.

Whyley has also been having private counselling to address his behaviour.

He told officers his actions were motivated by ‘excitement’ but that ‘the excitement soon wore off’. He denied being sexually aroused by the photos.

When he was told that there were 250 different female victims, he replied: “I would have to take your word for it. I have no idea how many there are. That’s more than I thought.”

Whyley, who had no previous convictions, stated he did not target blondes’.

He admitted he had cut a hole in the toe with the GoPro camera inside facing upwards. “He would change his boots to his camera boots when he was going to take pictures,” said the prosecutor.

Magistrates deemed the matter too serious for their jurisdiction.

The case will next be heard at Worcester Crown Court on April 9. Whyley must sign the sex offender register in the meantime. A pre-sentence report will be prepared.

He was granted unconditional bail until that hearing.

As a result, it has taken four years from the date of his offences to his final admissions and sentence at Worcester Crown Court yesterday, prevarication which has cost the taxpayer ‘thousands’ and at a time when the public purse is already under huge strain during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Judge Nicolas Cartwright, who jailed him for 50 weeks, said Bone’s actions in the ‘protracted history’ of the case showed his lack of remorse and that he could not be rehabilitated in the community, sending him straight to jail instead.

The 29-year old of Toulouse Drive, Norton, Worcester admitted making 21 indecent images of children at category A, the worst kind, between February 17 and April 17, 2017.

He also admitted making two indecent images at category B and three at category C. All but two images were videos rather than stills, an aggravating feature of the case as were the number of children being abused and the ages of the children, described as ‘so desperately young and vulnerable’ by the judge.

Judge Cartwright described some of the films in open court, details which are too graphic to report in full. He told the court some of the videos were around an hour long with titles like ‘Lolita’ and ‘four-year-old’ and showed children suffering penetrative sexual abuse.

One video recorded the rape of a two-year-old girl and another showed a girl of 10 tied to a bench and being sexually assaulted. Some showed children being abused by more than one adult and others displayed compilations of different children being molested

The children being abused were aged two, four, six, 10, 11 and 13 years old.  

The defendant, who showed no emotion when he learned he was going to prison, said himself in interview: “It’s the dark web for a reason – it’s horrible.”

Judge Cartwright said: “The offences relating to the viewing, making or distribution of these sorts of images is always regarded as so serious because these are real children against whom the most dreadful sexual offences, such as those I have just described, are actually being carried out and filmed so that these films can be circulated to people who have an interest in viewing such things.”

The judge also spoke of the physical and psychological harm caused to children by such abuse. He told Bone they grow up knowing the ‘ghastly offences committed against them will be out there on the internet for all time, for the whole of the rest of their lives and beyond’.

He also said that without men like Bone downloading these images there would be no demand and it was the demand which drove the supply and therefore fuelled the abuse.

Andrew Wilkins, prosecuting, said the matter came to court following a search of Bone’s home in July 2017 following a police investigation into a website known as Paradise Village.

During that search officers seized a Dell computer tower where the images were found. Mr Wilkins said: “He was interviewed about the matter in July and October 2017. The proceedings started in April 2018. It has taken a very long time to get to this stage.”

The starting point in the sentencing guidelines is a year’s custody with a range available to the sentencing judge of between 26 weeks and three years.

Judge Cartwright ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the computer tower which contained the images. He also ordered Bone to pay a £2,000 contribution towards costs because of the large number of hearings, caused because the defendant declined to admit his guilt.

The judge told him: “This represents only a small fraction of the total cost to the taxpayer because the court has obviously been involved on all these occasions and a significant sum has been expended upon what turned out to be totally unnecessary expert reports that have been pursued and pursued by you despite the fact that, when you were first interviewed about this matter, you admitted that you had viewed the images on your computer.”

This amount must be paid back over two years. Judge Cartwright also imposed a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years. This restricts Bone’s use of the internet and devices and his contact with children.

For example he must make any devices available to a monitoring police officer on request for inspection, must not delete his search history or install anti-forensic software or use social media to contact any child under the age of 16.

As a convicted sex offender he is now also subject to notification requirements, again for a period of 10 years.

Bone can expect to serve half his sentence in custody and half in the community on licence.