A Hungarian paedophile residing in Fairfield, Robert Panczel, deceived the police with a fabricated explanation regarding the presence of recordings depicting the sexual assault of toddlers and infants on his mobile phone.
Robert Panczel asserted that he possessed child abuse recordings and photographs as a self-proclaimed ‘vigilante’ targeting online sex offenders.
When questioned over his failure to report to the police, the 36-year-old father used the ‘language barrier’ as a justification.
He was then indicted for possessing indecent photos of children, three counts of producing such images, and single charges of possessing banned images of minors and possessing severe pornographic images involving animals.
After confessing to the offences prior to his trial, he was sentenced in Liverpool Crown Court on Wednesday, with the assistance of a Hungarian interpreter.
Louise McCloskey, the prosecutor, stated that on January 30 of the previous year, Cheshire Police officers, acting on intelligence, visited Robert Panczel’s residence in Warrington and confiscated a mobile phone.
He was promptly interrogated by law enforcement and stated that he had been interacting with other individuals on social media who were ‘engaged in the exploitation of youngsters and dissemination of photos.’
Robert Panczel stated that he acted with the goal of notifying the police and asserted that he did not retain any of the photographs he had saw.
In his subsequent interview with cops, he maintained this narrative and stated that he had refrained from reporting to the police because of a ‘language problem.’
He restated his previous statement from the initial interview, asserting that he lacked any sexual interest in youngsters.
Subsequent to the confiscation of his mobile phone, the device underwent forensic investigation, which disclosed the existence of indecent photos of minors.
Officers discovered 103 still photographs and 18 videos depicting the sexual assault of children, with the youngest victims, estimated to be between one and two years old, being raped.
Additional data revealed that children of all ages, up to 14, were subjected to sexual assault and rape.
Out of 121 photos and videos, 34 photographs and 11 movies were classified as category A, the most severe classification pertaining to child rape.
Of the remaining 76, 43 images and four films were classified as category B, while 26 images and three movies were designated as category C.
Furthermore, detectives discovered illicit photographs and videos, including computer-generated images, cartoons, or illustrations, depicting youngsters aged six to eight.
Additionally, further examination of the mobile phone revealed ‘extreme pornographic photographs categorised as bestiality, explicitly depicting sexual intercourse with animals.’
Prior to sentencing, Judge Gary Woodhall stated: “You acknowledged some participation in this type of activity during your initial police interview; however, your rationale and motivation for such actions were evidently fabricated.
”During your subsequent interview, you maintained your assertion that you were functioning as a vigilante.
“When questioned over your failure to report the incidents to the police, you attributed it to language issues.
“It was an utter fabrication born of desperation.
”You persisted in presenting this account from your police interview to the author of your pre-sentence report.You persist in proposing an innocent rationale for your misconduct; yet, through your attorney today, you have judiciously renounced these claims.
“This indicates that you are not being truthful regarding the motivation behind your offences, and it is evident that efforts must be made to facilitate your self-honesty.”
Judge Woodhall stated, “These offences are of such severity that only a custodial sentence is warranted.
”This crime does not occur without victims. The youngsters depicted in the photographs are experiencing both physical and psychological harm.
The observation of such images offers justification for those enabling the abuse to persist in their conduct.
Overall, considering the duration of your potential incarceration, minimal, if any, rehabilitative efforts would be undertaken. This, combined with your prior commendable character and the opportunities for rehabilitation during a suspended sentence, convinces me that the objectives of sentencing can be fulfilled by suspending the sentence.
Robert Panczel, residing at Weavers Fold in Fairfield, received a 20-month prison sentence, which was suspended for two years.
During this period, he is required to fulfil 30 days of rehabilitative activities and complete 200 hours of unpaid community service.
Robert Panczel was subjected to a 10-year sexual harm prevention order and mandated to register as a sex offender for the same duration.
Furthermore, an order was sanctioned to confiscate the defendant’s mobile phone.
If you or anyone you know have been affected by the people highlighted in this website, then please report those individuals to the Police on 101 (999 if an emergency) or visit their online resources for further details of the options for reporting a crime. You can also make a report at Crimestoppers should you wish to be completely anonymous. There is help available on our support links page.