R v Adriana Orme & Holly LeGresley

On 14 February 2025, Adriana Orme and Holly LeGresley were sentenced to 15 months and two years of imprisonment respectively for their involvement in the creation, distribution, and viewing of disturbing and extreme animal cruelty content, specifically depicting the torture of primates. They both engaged in chat rooms dedicated to causing torture to monkeys.  

Orme and LeGresley pleaded guilty to offences under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Serious Crime Act 2007. 

Facts

Adriana Orme, a 56-year-old woman, pleaded guilty to the offence of publishing an obscene article and encouraging another to cause unnecessary suffering to a protected animal.  Orme shared extreme animal cruelty videos on an online chat group. The material shared by Orme depicted the torture and killing of monkeys, showing disturbing violence and sadistic behaviour. Orme also made payments to an individual who ran the online groups, made comments on the videos, and saved videos depicting the torture of infant monkeys on her devices. According to Orme, her involvement in these online groups started with an innocuous search, and her initial motivation for joining the groups was to research and gather evidence on the videos so that they could be taken down, but she did not raise the issue with the police. 

Holly LeGresley, a 37-year-old woman, was more actively involved, acting as the administrator of the chat groups, sharing similar content, making payments for specific videos of torture to be made, and making several comments in support of the content and showing explicit approval. She engaged in particular with a man who self-styled himself as ‘Torture King’, who then identified her as playing a key role in one of the online groups. LeGresley also had interactions with other members of the group organising cruelty towards animals, including detailed suggestions about how to harm monkeys. LeGresley played a significant role in contributing to the dissemination of such content within the group, having gained the respect of its members and being entrusted with cataloging and distributing videos of the torture. These videos, which depicted the torture of monkeys, were visually recorded outside the UK before being shared, usually for payment, across online platforms worldwide.

During police interviews, LeGresley stated that she became involved due to a deep-seated phobia of pregnancy and childbirth, which she claimed was triggered by baby monkeys because of their resemblance to human infants. She admitted to channeling her fear and anger into the abuse of these animals, which led her to become increasingly engaged in online communities that shared and encouraged violent content.

Both individuals were found to have displayed a prolonged and repeated engagement with disturbing articles. Their offence represents a course of conduct that ‘can only be described as depraved, sickening, and wicked’, said His Honour Judge Burbidge KC. 

The Law

Both defendants were convicted under section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which criminalises the distribution of obscene materials with the potential to corrupt or deprave others. 

Additionally, they were convicted under Section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which criminalises intentionally encouraging or assisting the causing of an offence. 

Each offence carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment.

Sentencing 

Both Orme and LeGresley were convicted of multiple offences and sentenced accordingly:

• LeGresley received two years imprisonment for her involvement in the crimes, taking into account her important contribution to the online group and the extreme nature of her actions. Her sentence was considered to be within the range for offences involving serious cruelty, with a starting point of four years reduced for general mitigation and psychiatric factors

• Orme was sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment, with a starting point of three years reduced for her involvement, medical conditions, and mitigating factors such as her lesser degree of participation compared to LeGresley

  
  

Both sentences were to be served concurrently, and each defendant will serve half of the sentence, with the possibility of release on licence after this period, assuming no further offences are committed.

While there are no specific Sentencing Guidelines for this case, the court used the Sentencing Guideline for animal cruelty offences. The harm caused was considered to be in Category 1, because death or grave life-threatening injuries occurred. Both offenders were found to have a high level of culpability, with LeGresley, in particular, playing a more prominent role in the distribution and encouragement of such content.

Sentencing Remarks

His Honour Judge Burbidge KC emphasised the horrific nature of the crimes, stating that both Orme and LeGresley had engaged in a pattern of sadistic and depraved behaviour, which led to further illegal behaviour in the form of animal cruelty. 

A psychiatric assessment of both defendants revealed that they are likely to have undiagnosed autism spectrum disorders, combined with mixed anxiety and depressive disorders. Judge Burbidge noted that their psychological profiles did not absolve them of responsibility, but considered the sentencing guideline on offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments.  

LeGresley was described as having a leading role in the group, not only watching and sharing videos but also actively contributing to the discussions and encouraging others to participate. 

In one chilling statement, she remarked, "Got sliced up good and proper and it survived long enough to suffer. What's the point in just killing them? That's no fun." 

Although Orme’s involvement was lesser than LeGresley’s, the judge considered that her offences still merit condemnation. 

The judge concluded that the sentences should not be suspended, despite both individuals’ personal circumstances, as the public interest in deterring such behaviour outweighed the mitigating factors.

Commentary 

The Orme and LeGresley case is another example of the Obscene Publications Act being used to tackle online cruelty against animals. A similar case of charges brought under this Act was the case against Peter Stanley. This is an important space to watch as we observe the police, the CPS, and judges becoming more comfortable with applying this legal framework to online cruelty against animals.

The case highlights how commonplace content that depicts extreme cruelty against animals is becoming, with users starting to engage with this content on mainstream social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook, and then moving to encrypted platforms like Telegram.

The need to take action against this type of content appears to be what underpinned Parliament’s decision to include the offence of animal cruelty as illegal content under the Online Safety Act 2023. The Act imposes a duty of care on social media companies and search engines with regard to illegal content and content that is harmful to children. Social media companies now have a duty to remove animal cruelty content, provided that it is live-streamed or it encourages others to commit animal cruelty. It remains to be seen how social media companies apply these requirements in practice.

Getting advice

This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com.