'Don't tell my mum' Woman found with 'grotesque' child and animal porn at age 19 | Preston Crown Court

A university student has appeared before a judge in Preston for possessing indecent pictures of children and an “extreme” pornographic image involving her family’s pet poodle.

When 21-year-old Eloice Eastwood from Lancashire was arrested by police she begged them: “Don’t tell my Mum – I don’t want her to hate me.”

Eastwood pleaded guilty to six offences involving photographs and videos – some of which Judge Paul Hodgkinson described as “grotesque and disgusting”. One featured a six-month-old baby.

She also admitted two counts of breaching an order to notify police of her whereabouts following arrest. The court heard she flew off to Spain with a friend just days later without telling anyone she was going on holiday.

Judge Hodgkinson stepped back “only just” from sending her straight to jail and instead gave her a suspended sentence. But he told her: “You should consider yourself very, very fortunate.”

The court was told that Eastwood, who was just 19 at the time she was caught with the pornographic material, denied she had any sexual interest in young children.

Instead, her defence barrister insisted she led a lonely and isolated life, despite being an undergraduate, and had only accessed the material in an attempt to find friendship – and even a relationship – with people online.

Judge Hodgkinson said he didn’t “buy that” excuse and believed she had looked at child porn to satisfy her own perverted sexual interest.

He said it was an “unusual” case because the vast majority of offenders were men. But, as a woman of just 19, she had gathered images from the internet featuring the abuse and sexual abuse of children.

One of the charges involved her distributing a vile image to another person online. He described that as “by far the most serious” offence she had committed.

“When you were 19 or 20, sat alone in your bedroom with a laptop, isolated, feeling lonely, away from the world, the images must have felt remote. But every single one of these images leads to victims who are having to suffer for your pleasure and others’ perverted pleasure.”

And he added: “The reason (you say) was to seek attention because you were lonely and isolated. You went down a rabbit hole and joined a community (of people) that were interested in such depraved matters that you were.

“You garnered their attention in order to gain their friendship and in order to gain a relationship.

“In each and every one of the images is a victim. That is not some imaginary situation you see on your screen, that is a reflection of a very dangerous set of circumstances brought together to feed people with interests like yourself.”

The court was told that in July 2025 police received information that on a social media platform indecent images of children had been produced by an email account linked to Eastwood.

One of the images was an “extremely pornographic” image involving a black poodle dog. When officers went to arrest her at home in Lincoln Court, Accrington they found a black poodle dog, matching the description of the one in the image.

Eastwood, from Accrington, had uploaded images, including the dog porn one, to an online contact called Jack R. But there was no suggestion it had been sent to anyone else.

In total she was found to have 84 indecent images of children – 30 of them the highest Category A – and a further 31 prohibited images which included horrific injuries to people.

On her laptop police found more than 500 pages of conversations between her and other people in the group.

When interviewed she gave “no comment” answers to all questions. Having then pleaded guilty to the charges she was told she had to obey notification requirements so that police could know where she was. But she failed to register and also jetted off to Spain with a friend days later without informing police.

Barrister Anthony Horsfall, defending Eastwood, said his client had suffered an “unhappy” upbringing with hardship, adversity and abuse. It had left her vulnerable with feelings of emotional loneliness and isolation.

“The defendant does not have an interest in children, but an attachment to online communication and relationships generated online,” he explained. She had, he said, used this type of offending to get attention

He added that she had not fully understood the requirements of the notification order. She hadn’t fully understood what was in the notification document and had lacked an appreciation of the seriousness of the situation she was in.

“Rather than realising the predicament she was in she went on holiday with a friend. She has (now) faced up to what are serious offences and has accepted responsibility.”

Judge Hodgkinson told Eastwood her offending had been “serious”. “Not simply possessing but distributing images of children being abused.

“It is an unusual case. The majority of defendants who appear for this type of offending are men who have a sexual interest in young children.

“She seems to me to be saying that actually she doesn’t necessarily have that interest, but she uses it to garner attention from men who do.”

He said the images were “horrific” and he told Eastwood: “Every image downloaded reflects a real-life situation of a child being abused.

“I am told that because you were isolated and lonely you sought the attention of others. You say you don’t have that sexual attraction, you simply used it as a calculated, cynical way to attract the attention you so desired.”

Judge Hodgkinson gave her a three-year prison sentence suspended for two years. He also ordered her to complete 40 rehabilitation activity days and 100 hours of unpaid work.

She was given a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, restricting her use of the internet for the next 10 years.

But he warned her that if she failed to comply with all the conditions of those orders she would “very likely” go to prison.

“The only reason you are not in prison now is that there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.”