Dangerous paedophile caught staring at little girls in swimming pool one day after he was freed by appeal judges is released from prison AGAIN by same court

David John Filor, 31, was jailed for 30 months in August for breeching his sexual offences prevention order

He watched young small girls at Newport Leisure Centre a day after his release from jail in April



Court of Appeal judges said he has a 'long-standing and disturbing' sexual interest in young girls

But ruled sentence 'out of proportion' with the crime he committed





A 'dangerous' paedophile who was jailed after he was caught watching girls at a swimming pool a day after he was released by the Court of Appeal has today been freed once more - by the same court.



David John Filor, 31, walked free in April after appeal judges said his potentially lifelong sentence for child porn crimes was unlawful.



Within 24 hours he was spotted by police watching children play in the swimming pool at Newport leisure centre.



'Dangerous': Filor was jailed for 30 months in August after being caught watching girls at Newport Leisure Centre, pictured, thereby breeching his sexual offences prevention order

He admitted breaching a court order banning him from loitering near places likely to attract children and was jailed for 30 moths at Cardiff Crown Court in August.



However, today he was released again after three senior judges at the Court of Appeal in London said the prison sentence was 'excessive'.



Mr Justice Males, sitting with Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Griffith Williams, cut the sentence to eight months, allowing immediate release.

The judge said that, although there was a risk his offending might escalate in future, a sentence 'out of all proportion' with what he actually did could not be justified.

Filor, of Argoed, Blackwood in Gwent, was initially jailed in January 2011 after admitting possessing child and extreme pornography.

He was found with a cache of 430 images of child sex abuse, 78 of which were at the most depraved level as categorised by police.

The images included some of surgical procedures being carried out on children’s bodies and photos of bestiality, the Court of Appeal heard in April.

Filor was found to be a 'dangerous' offender, the court in April heard, after he confessed to 'fantasising' about sexual attacks on children.



He was given an open-ended imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence last year, designed to keep him behind bars until considered safe for release.

'...while the risk of future offending is a factor, it cannot justify a sentence which is out of all proportion to what the appellant has done.'

The Court of Appeal in April ruled the sentence was 'unlawful' because he must be punished for what he did and not what he might do in the future.

The following day he visited the leisure centre despite being banned by a sexual offences prevention order.



Filor was followed and monitored by 17 police surveillance officers. On CCTV footage, he can be seen paying particular attention to a girl of about nine as she walks past and watching a children’s swimming pool through a window.

Giving the judgment today, Mr Justice Males said Filor had a 'long-standing and disturbing' sexual interest in young girls, but had not been in trouble for contact offences.

The judge who sentenced him had been influenced by a pre-sentence report suggesting that Filor was 'extremely dangerous', based on other allegations.

Appeal: Judges at the Court of Appeal, which sit at the Royal Courts of Justice, pictured, in London, said the sentence was 'excessive'

But he had not been prosecuted for those allegations and did not accept them to be true, meaning he should not have been sentenced on the basis of them, Mr Justice Males said.

He added: '[Filor] must be sentenced for the offence to which he has pleaded guilty and, while the risk of future offending is a factor, it cannot justify a sentence which is out of all proportion to what the appellant has done.

'In this case, what the appellant has done is relatively modest. It was a single occasion. It didn’t involve contact with any child.

'It occurred in a public place where the children were accompanied by their parents and were under supervision.

'We have no doubt that the sentence passed in this case was excessive.'