Paedophile optometrist struck off

An optometrist whose computer contained around 600 pornographic images of children has been struck off.

The images were found when police raided the London home of Ashley Gould in 2004. Investigations discovered 457 still images and a further 142 moving ones.

Later, in July 2005, he pleaded guilty at Horseferry Road Magistrates Court to five charges of making an indecent photograph of a child and two counts of having indecent photographs of children.

On July 29 2005 he was convicted and subsequently sentenced to a three-year rehabilitation order with a requirement to attend the sex offenders programme as directed and to sign onto the sex offenders register for five years.

Although Gould admitted his conviction at last week's fitness to practise hearing, he claimed that the panel should not strike him off, arguing that his conviction did not prevent him from practising as an optometrist.

Gould had worked at a London practice until October last year when he was given a six-month interim order suspension.

He told the hearing: 'I accept having images of males under the age of 18 - and they were serious, repeated offences. I appreciate the gravity of the behaviour.'

However, he said his motive in looking at the internet sites was 'an expression of curiosity'. However, his testimony did not impress the GOC's panel which decided his offences and sentence impaired his fitness to practise.

Corinna Kershaw, chair of the committee, told him: 'The committee found the offences for which the registrant was convicted were very serious and would be rightly so regarded by any reasonable person knowing all the material facts.

The committee accepted that there was mitigation in the registrant's case, particularly his plea of guilt, which was reflected in the sentence that he received.

'However, bearing in mind the gravity of convictions and the fact that he is subject to supervision and a requirement to attend a sex offenders programme, the committee concluded that the only way to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and the profession's own confidence in its proper professional standards was to erase the registrant's name from the register.

'To reflect the fact that the registrant has not completed his sentence, including the sex offenders programme found by the court to be necessary in his case, the committee ordered that the registrant be suspended from the register with immediate effect and that this suspension shall last until such time as the period for appealing the erasure order has expired or any appeal in this matter has been determined.'