A UNIVERSITY student who was caught for the second time downloading sick images of young boys from the internet and jailed indefinitely launched an Appeal Court challenge to his sentence.

Alexander James Terrell, 21, was arrested at his student digs in Bournemouth after police officers found images on his computer at home in Rosemont Avenue, Risca.

In July, he was sentenced to an indefinite term of imprisonment (IPP) at Newport Crown Court after pleading guilty to four specimen charges of making indecent photographs of children and asking for another 36 similar offences to be taken into consideration by the court.

The sentence means Terrell can have no hope of release until he can persuade the Parole Board he poses no serious public danger.

Police had found the images on his computer at home in Risca in August of last year and arrested him in Bournemouth, where he was in his first year of university.

The 20 photographs which were found ranged from the least to the most serious level, as defined in law, and some had been copied onto a compact disc.

Terrell admitted all of the offences immediately and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity in court.

Terrell, who had previously been convicted of charges relating to more than 1,200 indecent images of children in February 2003, appeared in court to launch his appeal.

His counsel, Matthew Cobbe, told judges, Lord Justice Tuckey, Mr Justice Foskett and Sir Richard Curtis, that his argument revolved around the justification for passing the indefinite sentence.

In order to pass such a sentence, the Crown Court judge had to assess Terrell as posing a significant risk of causing "serious harm", whether physical or psychological, to members of the public in the future, by his commission of further offences.

Mr Cobbe argued that the judge was wrong to say that Terrell posed the necessary risk of such harm and, therefore, the imposition of the indefinite sentence was wrong.

But, after hearing Mr Cobbe's arguments, the judges said it would not be right to rule on the appeal without first hearing from lawyers representing the Crown.

The case was adjourned to a later date, not yet specified.