Judges deny Lutterworth sex fiend’s appeal bid

Top judges have ruled that a sex fiend who was jailed for preying on two girls can have no complaints about his tough sentence
Top judges have ruled that a sex fiend who was jailed for preying on two girls can have no complaints about his tough sentence

Top judges have ruled that a sex fiend who was jailed for preying on two girls can have no complaints about his tough sentence.

Mr Justice Irwin told London’s Appeal Court that Peter Mahoney (71), of Spring Close, Lutterworth, left his victims deeply traumatised after he repeatedly molested them under the pretext of innocent “hugs”.

The court heard the pensioner remains in “rigid denial” about his past. At his trial he insisted that he was the victim of a conspiracy.

Mahoney was jailed for nine years at Leicester Crown Court last July after a jury convicted him of sexually assaulting the youngsters.

Mahoney also admitted a series of charges of possessing child pornography in relation to a hoard of degrading images seized by police.

Mr Justice Irwin said that when Mahoney was arrested in March 2011 he made desperate attempts to hide two incriminating memory sticks which held the images.

The court heard that Mahoney, of previous good character, insisted that the images had been “sent to him anonymously”.

He later claimed he had downloaded them while checking his PC for viruses.

Mr Justice Irwin condemned the images as “appalling”.

The judge said that post-sentence reports suggested Mahoney had no insight into his victims’ suffering.

He was described as a man with an entrenched sexual interest in children despite continuing to deny his crimes.

The judge said: “The impact here was considerable. They suffered repeated nightmares.”

Mahoney’s case reached the Appeal Court as he pleaded for a cut in his punishment, claiming it was too harsh.

Mr Justice Irwin, who was sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Judge Paul Batty QC, said Mahoney was guilty of “sustained criminal behaviour”.

The judge concluded that the sentence was fully justified and refused permission to appeal.