The Supreme Court has upheld a decision not to fully suspend a prison sentence for a man convicted of child pornography offences.

Brian Bennett, 53, pleaded guilty in Magistrates’ Court to two counts of accessing child pornography after he initially denied the allegations.

The court heard that Bennett was arrested after the Bermuda Police Service, working with overseas partners, discovered that between December 2017 and March 2018 a local IP (internet protocol) address had accessed and downloaded files portraying child sexual exploitation.

On June 20, 2018, officers seized a series of electronic devices from Bennett’s Devonshire home and business.

A forensic search of the devices revealed 2,836 “Class A” images and videos — the most extreme classification of child sexual abuse material — as well as 1,022 “Class C” images.

However, the court heard he was not charged with the offences until June 2023.

Reports provided to the court found that he was at “very low risk” of reoffending and would benefit from counselling services.

Magistrate Auralee Cassidy sentenced Bennett to two years behind bars but ordered that half of that sentence be suspended for two years.

She also ordered Bennett to complete one year of probation upon being released and that he be added to the sex offenders register.

However, Bennett argued before the Supreme Court that the magistrate failed to apply her mind to the principle of “good reason” in the context of a suspended sentence and there was good reason to suspend the entirety of the sentence.

In a written decision dated July 24, Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe dismissed all grounds of the appeal, stating that the only factor the magistrate did not appear to take into consideration was that Bennett led a “law-abiding life” in the five years between his arrest and when he appeared before the courts.

Mr Justice Wolffe found: “It was not that the learned magistrate did not apply her mind as to whether there were any good reasons to suspend any period of incarceration.

“She did apply her mind to such and it appears to me that the learned magistrate was of the concluding view that the seriousness of the offences far outweighed the good reasons needed to suspend the two-year term of imprisonment in full.”

He said the magistrate found that mitigating factors, including delays in the case progressing, provided good reason for some of the sentence to be suspended. He added that suspending half of the sentence was “not insignificant”.

Mr Justice Wolffe wrote: “In the circumstances of this matter, suspending half of the imprisonment imposed is quite considerable and a legitimate argument could even be made that it was too much of a suspension.”

The judge also rejected an argument that community service should have been considered as a sentencing option, stating that it would be “unconscionable” in the circumstances.

Mr Justice Wolffe said the magistrate’s words in passing sentence “were rightly an unequivocal reflection of the feelings of disgust of the community in respect of the offences related to child pornography, whether accessing such or possessing such”.

He added: “It cannot be understated that offences which may indirectly or directly threaten or may even decimate the innocence of children or which may directly or indirectly result in children living a life which is controlled by psychological, psychiatric trauma, should attract the harshest of sentences.

“Offences involving the accessing or possessing of child abusive material or child pornography are such offences.

“Therefore, it may behove those in Parliament to seriously consider upwardly adjusting the maximum sentences for the offences of possessing and accessing child abusive material or child pornography.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers