DAVID Lutz Ward was jailed for 15 years for sickening offences.

He had filmed himself as he attempted to rape a baby and he was found to be running an international internet delivery system which distributed an average of 3,000 sexual images a day of small children.

And yet – as we report on Page 4 of today’s paper – Ward was released early from his sentence.

When he was let out on parole before his sentence had been completed, he was subject to a sexual offences prevention order to control his use of the internet.

He simply ignored it and within eight months had downloaded more than 12,300 sexual photographs and films of children.

Is it any wonder so many people find themselves exasperated by our criminal justice system?

We appreciate the principle of rehabilitation. We also acknowledge the complexities in dealing with paedophiles. But how bad has the offence got to be in order for justice to be fully served?

And what is the point of a sexual offences prevention order in the free-for-all age of the internet? It isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Ward, formerly of Acomb, York, is now awaiting sentence for his latest crimes. A judge has told him he needs time to go over his past history to decide whether he should be classed as a dangerous offender. If he is, he could be given a life sentence.

Surely, by now, there can be no question that David Lutz Ward should be officially categorised as “dangerous” and, therefore, qualify for a life sentence.

But what will “life in prison” really mean? How long will it be before he is back on the internet, engaging in sexual offences against children?