A PAEDOPHILE who took covert films and photos of a young girl has been jailed for nearly three years at York Crown Court.

Police found photos and videos of more than one child on Ian Carl Thompson’s mobile phone, said Catherine Silverton, prosecuting.

Some appeared to have been taken on a hidden camera.

They had seized the phone while investigating him for sexual assault of a child.

Thompson, 54, of New Millgate, Selby, pleaded guilty to sexual assault, two charges of voyeurism, one of taking indecent images of children and two of having indecent images of children.

“Quite clearly you had an unhealthy and illegal interest in young females,” Judge Simon Hickey told him. “You are still a medium risk to young females.”

He jailed Thompson for 34 months at York Crown Court, put him on the sex offenders' register for 10 years and made him subject to a sexual harm prevention order for life.

Thompson is now barred from working with vulnerable adults and children and the camera he used will be destroyed by the police.

Ms Silverton said the child Thompson sexually abused kept quiet for some months, but finally felt able to tell a friend and the police were alerted.

Thompson refused to give police the PIN number of his phone but officers found evidence Thompson had deliberately hidden a camera in a place where it could covertly film a child.

They also found videos and photos taken covertly and other videos and photos of a child on the phone.

He also had been following girls aged 15 to 18 on TikTok.

For Thompson, Chris Dunn said sexual misconduct was not part of his normal behaviour and the crimes he admitted to were not in character for him.

They were an isolated incident and were unlikely to be repeated, he said.

The court heard that though Thompson had previous convictions they were all very old and none were for a sexual crime.

Mr Dunn said that since his arrest Thompson had completed a course with the Lucy Faithful Foundation which does rehabilitation work with sex offenders and had found the process “anxiety producing and challenging”.

There had been a delay in bringing the case to court, not all of which was due to the defendant, said Mr Dunn.