A CONVICTED sex offender says he will take his case to the Court of Appeal after being found guilty of breaching his sentence.
He claims the authorities have “moved the goalposts”.
Thomas Eaton was charged with failing to comply with legal obligations to give police details including identification, bank, credit and debit card details.
The 66-year-old was convicted of five offences of making indecent images of children in May 2011.
He was given a three-year community order, ordered to register as a sex offender for five years and banned from unsuper- vised use of the internet for three years.
Stafford Crown Court heard new regulations came into force in August last year which required Eaton, of Peter James Court, to provide identification details and details of bank and credit cards.
Eaton’s solicitors wrote to the police saying he wouldn’t provide the information.
The court was told he failed to provide the details from August to November.
Paul Farrow, prosecuting, said: “He is subject to these notification require- ments. He is covered by the regulations.
“In essence he hasn’t told police what he was asked to. We know there’s been an outright refusal to give those details. The law is what it is and he’s obliged to give those details.”
Defending himself Eaton said: “In layman’s terms I went on the internet and searched out images. The offence was dealt with.
"I had already been dealt with and terms and obligations attached to my sentence the year before. I don’t see in the regulations where it stipulates they apply to people already dealt with by the court.
“I was told the price I had to pay for my offence - why should it be increased now.”
Judge Simon Tonking told the jury: “This court is simply here to decide whether this criminal offence has or has not been committed. His summary of the law is simply incorrect.” The jury of five women and seven men took 20 minutes to find Eaton guilty.
A sentencing date has yet to be announced.
After the trial Eaton said he would take the matter to the court of appeal.
“I still feel strongly this is something retrospective,” he said.
“You do something wrong, you go to court, and they tell you how you are going to pay for what you have done wrong.
"You accept that, then people come and shift the goalposts.
“I don’t expect much sympathy over this given the nature of the offence.”
Eaton has previously been to the Court of Appeal about his sentencing. He was originally given a three-year sexual offences prevention order banning unsupervised use of the internet.
The order was later amended by the sentencing judge to be indefinite.
The Court of Appeal ruled the original order was unlawful as the legal minimum for such an order is five years and quashed it.