A claim that former Crown Court judge David Selwood avoided prison after admitting offences involving indecent images of children is true. But the sentencing took place on 13 July 2004, not in 2026. A version of the story circulating online omits that essential date.
The post supplied to Fish 4 News describes Selwood’s convictions, his former position at Portsmouth Crown Court and his non-custodial sentence. Those central details are supported by contemporary reporting and an official disciplinary record. Without a year, however, readers could reasonably mistake the account for a new court case.
What happened to Judge David Selwood in 2004?
Selwood, then 70, had been the resident judge at Portsmouth Crown Court. He admitted 12 offences of making indecent photographs of children and one offence of possessing such photographs. Police found 75 images of naked or partially clothed boys aged between eight and 14 on his laptop, according to reports published at the time.
He was sentenced at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court in London on 13 July 2004 to a 12-month community rehabilitation order. He was not imprisoned. The court also ordered the forfeiture of his computer and photographs, and reports said he was placed on the sex offenders register for five years.
The case followed information passed to British police by US authorities investigating a website. Selwood had stepped down from his judicial role before sentencing.
Why did the court impose a community sentence?
Senior District Judge Timothy Workman acknowledged Selwood’s previous public service and early guilty plea, but stressed that offences involving such images contributed to the exploitation and abuse of children. Contemporary reports said the court considered the images to be in the least serious category then used for such material and accepted that they had been downloaded for his own use.
Workman ordered probation supervision rather than a condition requiring attendance on a sex offenders’ treatment programme. Those were the sentencing court’s findings and decisions in 2004, not a fresh assessment of the case.
What happened after the conviction?
Selwood’s professional standing did not survive the case. On 24 March 2005, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard proceedings concerning his conduct. In findings dated 11 May 2005, it ordered that David Henry Deering Selwood be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. The tribunal expressly noted his experience of dealing with such offences and the importance of public confidence in the profession.
The tribunal’s published findings independently confirm the 2004 conviction, the 13 charges and the 12-month community rehabilitation order.
Was the sentence criticised at the time?
Yes. The sentence prompted public criticism in 2004, including concern from children’s charities about cases Selwood had previously handled as a judge. A House of Commons Early Day Motion called the sentence too lenient and urged the Attorney General to seek a review. Parliamentary records show 37 signatures, including MPs from more than one party.
That motion records criticism and a request for a review. It does not, by itself, establish that the sentence was subsequently changed.
Why is the story appearing online now?
The version supplied to Fish 4 News recounts the case as if it were a current news report but does not state the sentencing year. It contains significant historical facts, yet leaves out the context that makes those facts understandable. Online recirculation is not evidence of a new prosecution or a new sentencing decision.
We have not established who first recirculated this particular wording, why they did so or whether any political organisation coordinated its distribution. Suggestions that it is connected to an unrelated recent celebrity case or intended to damage a political party would require separate evidence. Nothing in the historic court records establishes those motives.
What is confirmed, and what remains unknown?
- Confirmed: Selwood admitted 13 indecent-image offences and received a 12-month community rehabilitation order in July 2004.
- Confirmed: The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck him off in 2005.
- Confirmed: MPs criticised the sentence in a contemporary parliamentary motion.
- Not established: The origin or motive of the undated post now being shared, or any coordinated political campaign behind it.
Fish 4 News assessment
True historical claim, potentially misleading presentation. David Selwood did avoid a prison sentence for offences involving indecent images of children. The crucial missing context is that it happened more than 22 years ago. A post which does not give the date can mislead even where its central factual assertions are accurate.
