Jonathan Hunt,(pictured in a police mugshot) was a financial advisor who flaunted his wealth while trying to meet a girl for sex

Nearly half of paedophiles found guilty of grooming a child online before trying to meet them for sex are let off jail by 'lenient' judges, new figures show.

Criminals who have been spared time behind bars include a 56-year-old man who attempted to meet who he thought was a 15-year-old girl for sex before being arrested by police, who then found 1,673 indecent images of children at his home.

He was among 56% of those convicted under the charge of attempting to meet a child following grooming to dodge prison in 2016, compared to 33% in 2015 and 57% in 2014.

Over the three years, 88 paedophiles – 49 per cent - were spared an immediate jail term, versus 91 who went straight behind bars, according to a Freedom of Information request by MailOnline.

Dark Justice, a two-man operation based in Newcastle that has caught dozens of paedophiles by posing as children online, insisted ‘every’ child groomer should go to jail.

‘These lenient sentences are simply not a deterrent - when paedophiles see that there is just a 50-50 chance of going to prison after being caught they think it is worth taking the risk,’ the group told MailOnline.

‘These sick people found guilty of grooming intended to rape their child victim, and were more than happy to destroy their lives. They need to be rehabilitated, and the best place to do that is behind bars.

'People who commit benefit fraud or deal cannabis get years in prison but if someone wants to rape a child they tell the judge they’re a good guy and have had a hard life so get let off.’

David Curran, 56,(left) and Raymond Drummond, 46, both thought they were meeting children for sex. They are seen here in video stills being snared by Dark Justice

Revealed: How dozens of child groomers dodge prison 2014 2015 2016 Total groomers sentenced 30 54 95 13(43%) 36(67%) 42(44%) Sent straight to prison Suspended sentence 17(57%) 18(33%) 53(56%) Source: MoJ Advertisement

Defendants found guilty of the charge of attempting to meet a child following grooming, which nearly always takes place online or over a mobile phone, face a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.

Judges decide the sentence after considering a number of factors including the type of sexual activity initiated and whether the offender used threats or targeted a child seen as particularly vulnerable.

People who have already been convicted of grooming a child for sex are far more likely to be put behind bars after a second offence. This happened once in 2014 and twice in 2016.

Offenders given a suspended sentence are not sent to jail unless they break the law during the period of their probation.

They have to abide by sexual harm prevention orders, which restrict activity such as Internet use, undergo therapy, and sign the sex offenders register.

Advocates of keeping certain child groomers out of jail say it is the best way to provide treatment and thus prevent re-offending.

Curran, pictured, had 1,673 indecent images of children among a stash of 50,000 legal pornographic pictures and films at his home in Warkworth, Northumberland

From April 2017, it was made a specific offence to send sexual messages to a child even without any intention to meet for sex.

A Government spokesman said: ‘Grooming is abhorrent, and this government has acted decisively to stamp it out at the earliest possible stage and better protect potential victims.

‘Last year we made sexual communication with a child a criminal offence, with a maximum sentence of two years.

‘And by introducing sexual risk orders we have given the police greater powers to intervene earlier and stop grooming before any sexual activity occurs.

‘Sentencing decisions in court are rightly a matter for independent judges, who always consider the full facts of the case.’

An NSPCC spokesperson said: ‘The grooming of a child is a serious offence in its own right and if not detected in time can lead to appalling cases of abuse.

‘We hope both the actions and the intentions of the individuals convicted of grooming are fully taken into account when the time comes for them to be sentenced.’