A young Isle of Wight paedophile has admitted further child sex offences, committed less than 2 months after being handed a suspended prison sentence for similar crimes just last year.
26-year-old Logan Robinson, of Nelson Road in Newport, was handed 20 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, just over a year ago, on 7th September 2025, for possessing and distributing indecent images, possessing prohibited images and possessing extreme pornography which portrayed sexual assault and bestiality.
As a result of these crimes, he was placed on the Sex Offenders Register and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years.
Despite this, Robinson appeared before the Isle of Wight Magistrates Court again this afternoon (Tuesday), where he pleaded guilty to 4 charges of making pornographic photos of children.
The charges relate to 3rd November 2025, when a previously installed monitoring system on his phone alerted police to the fact that Robinson was looking at indecent images of children once again. Officers entered his home on Nelson Road and seized the device.
A total of 99x Category C images were found alongside 20x Category B, 16x Category A and 2 prohibited images.
The court heard that Robinson’s reoffending had occurred just 50 days after he was handed his original suspended sentence, where he vowed to the Magistrates that he could change.
The young man, who was 22 when his interest in children began, has seen his case sent straight to Crown Court, with prosecutor Tara Olney telling the Magistrates that even an offence of possessing 1x Cat C image would result in a sentence out of their powers.
The defendant was granted unconditional bail.
Logan Robinson is due to next appear at the Isle of Wight Crown Court on 8th October.
Castration !!!
Castration why not !!!!
I have spare bricks….
name and shame the judge who bailed him…… he should have been banged up for a very long time…..
Justice will berved no doubt.
Magistrate clearly demonstrated being unfit to serve. Needs a removing from office.
Have you read the Magistrate’s sentencing guidelines for these offences on the Sentencing Council website and determined an alternative sentence that wholly complies with those guidelines?
Sometimes we need to ask why a Magistrate gave the sentence they did, rather than blaming them. Often it’s the sentencing guidelines at odds with public sentiment, not the individual Magistrate.
This young man obviously belongs in jail with a significant package of rehabilitation alongside that punishment.
But blaming a Magistrate for following proscriptive guidelines does both the Magistrate and the victims a disservice.
I will not argue that the current sentencing guides are at odds with common sense and do restrict the magistrates decisions, however I totally oppose the principle of rehabilitation for such people, it is a waste of money , you cannot rehabilitate a paedophile,, it is a lifetime obsession, castration will prevent them sexually abusng young children but will not remove the urge.this individual has shown that he cannot stop himslef so for the protection of the public which he presents an ongoing threat he must be remanded in custody and that is totally within the magistrates power.
Whilst I agree that you can’t readily change the attraction, rehabilitation has been shown in some cases to be effective in controlling the behaviours associated with it.
I understand the feelings expressed by some that paedophiles should be incarcerated ad infinitum, but also understand the economic, legal and moral cost of indeterminate sentencing.
This issue must be addressed using best evidence, not purely the quite understandable emotional repulsion felt towards offenders and their crimes.
Effective so far. Rehabilitated so far.
While (in this case) he’s a paedophile because it’s a crime of a sexual nature with real children’s pictures (who clearly HAVE been someone’s victim in order for the pictures to exist) but without actual hands on. That makes indeterminate sentencing questionable, yet the incarceration of a kid who once stole a mobile phone or a bike and is still inside 20 years later isn’t?
Personally, crimes against the person= jail on a sliding scale of harm/potential harm, crimes against property = fines/sequestration of goods to the value. If we did that, and gave priority to those who REALLY need to be kept away from society, it would reduce the prison population by roughly 50%.
Not for a first offence it isn’t, and would be a crown court ruling which it has been escalated to because of the previous offence being within the suspended sentence.
The gateway (which child pornography prisoners will tell you) starts with ordinary pornography, and you’re right, they don’t and can’t change. Some men become desensitised and require more extreme images to gain the same, erm., effect. Some will then cross the boundary between titillation and in-person abuse.
Back to ‘ordinary’ pornography. That’s also the same for adult women as opposed to children. Not all men, but some. Abuse though doesn’t happen in a vaccum…it needs a trigger. If some men can’t stop seeing others as a means to their own fulfilment then we take the trigger away from all.
Viewing pornography is abusive. The children filmed are obviously the victims. So whilst castration might prevent phicual rape, it wouldn’t prevent porn, kidnaps, sexual assaults.
I dont know how successful or not, rehabilitation is or isn’t. Probably, neither do you. But our government needs to start prioritising crimes against kids for sentencing at the very least.
If the punishment is unfit for the crime who else but the judges are the ones that should question these measures but I am others feel as long as the judges are getting their goid wages they do not want to rock the boat so to speak .!’n
You beat me to it. Although I’ve had this conversation with the ‘string ’em up!’ brigade many times over. Does not compute, it seems.
Once a nonce always a nonce. Stop wasting time and tax payers money and delete it.
He is not going to change, we should be protected from this parasitic monster before he grabs a poor innocent child, the warning signs are right in front of us. Oxygen thief.
Well said, common sense at last. In the mean time Birch the little bastard.
Bring back the rope for these scum…simple as that.
I quite agree, a real suspended sentence, by the neck.
That’s what happens when you let these nonce’s off isn’t it. Should have jailed him the first time shouldn’t you