A MAN who had more than 1,300 child porn images has been told that any suggestion of him not knowing they were illegal is "nonsense".

Of the images police found at the home of 58-year-old Eric Rohtla were 23 classed by prosecutors as being the most serious to possess.

Another 15 were category B with 1,306 category C pictures were found.

The ages of the youngsters depicted in them were said to range from seven upwards.

Rohtla pleaded guilty to six counts of making indecent photographs of children. His offences were committed between October 2012 and March 2014.

Antony Longworth, prosecuting at Carlisle Crown Court, said the images were contained on a computer tower and memory stick seized from Rohtla's home at Crooked Holme, Brampton,

"He was interviewed and it is right to say he was frank. He reported to the police that he had what he described as an addiction," said Mr Longworth.

Mr Longworth said Rohtla denied he was interested in the most serious type of illegal pictures.

But the prosecutor noted: "The history and material recovered showed there were 23 such images retained on his computer."

Rohtla was said to be a man of previous good character who had indicated his guilt from the start.

But sentencing, Judge Peter Davies said: "In the pre-sentence report I have read, it says that when you started viewing the images you didn't know it was illegal. Nonsense. You knew it was illegal.

"You said you didn't know it was a form of child abuse. Nonsense. Of course you knew it was."

Judge Davies said children were exploited by people seeking to make money from such crimes.

"Somebody is doing that for their own profit," he added. "They cannot profit from anything unless people like you go to these websites and keep pervertedly looking at them."

Judge Davies imposed a three-year community order. He stressed it was in the public interest that Rohtla should be cured of the "addiction" he had confessed to.

Rohtla must attend an internet sexual offending treatment programme when required and complete 200 hours of unpaid work.

He must comply with the strict terms of a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years and is barred from working with children and vulnerable adults.

In addition, he was made subject to the sex offender notification requirements for five years.

Judge Davies told Rohtla: "These are serious offences. Anything you think to the contrary, because of the nature of the sentence, is wrong."