A military veteran who was charged after police found almost 18,000 images of child pornography on his computers and an external hard drive told investigators he had been downloading child pornography since the internet was invented.
Douglas Noseworthy had originally pleaded not guilty in Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court to charges of possessing and accessing child pornography.
After the judge rejected his application to have evidence excluded from trial, he changed his plea on the possession charge to guilty. The Crown then withdrew the accessing charge.
Justice Carl Thompson asked Noseworthy Thursday if he understood that a conviction of possessing child pornography carries a minimum sentence of a year in a jail and a maximum of 10 years.
“Yes, Justice, I understand,” Noseworthy replied.
RELATED STORY:
Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court judge refuses to throw out evidence
According to an agreed statement of facts presented by prosecutor Jeff Summers Thursday, a U.S. tip line received information that a person using a Hotmail address with Noseworthy’s name had uploaded 61 images of child pornography online. Police traced the account to this province and alerted local authorities, who identified the IP address as that of Noseworthy. After a lengthy investigation and obtaining a warrant to search his home for computer data, police arrested Noseworthy at work on Oct. 6, 2016.
The court heard Noseworthy had been co-operative, telling the investigators they would find what they were looking for on his laptops. The officers located evidence of 17,852 images and three videos on a handful of computers and an external hard drive in Noseworthy’s home, depicting boys and girls as young as toddlers. Many of the photos had been deleted and were recovered by forensic software.
The officers also discovered Noseworthy had previously subscribed to newsgroups — online discussion forums — related to child pornography.
Last week, Thompson rejected an application from Noseworthy arguing police had breached his rights when they arrested him and asking for statements he had made to the officers and evidence seized as the result of the search warrant to be thrown out. The arresting officer hadn’t immediately allowed him to contact a lawyer, he argued, and the circumstances of his arrest at work contributed to him being too overwhelmed to understand the information she was giving him. Noseworthy said he only responded “yes” to her questions so he could “have it all over with.”
Defence lawyer Mark Gruchy asked Thursday for a pre-sentence report to be conducted on Noseworthy before the case proceeds to a sentencing hearing. He indicated Noseworthy has been meeting with health professionals for some time and their reports could influence the matter.
Noseworthy will be back in court Sept. 25.
Twitter: @tara_bradbury
