A man convicted of choking a child has been jailed after a judge praised the "quick-thinking and sensible" action of the eyewitness who caught him on camera.

Steven Liddle, who maintains his innocence, was secretly snapped grasping the youngster around the neck in Folkestone in June last year.

His forceful gripping caused three haemorrhage marks which a doctor later concluded "spoke of strangulation".

But when interviewed by police Liddle claimed he had simply been tickling the child's collarbone.

He had also been surreptitiously filmed holding the victim tightly and covering their mouth with his hand, and twice "jumping" up and down while the child lay on the floor being "squeezed" between Liddle's feet.

The image and phone clips, in which the victim was visibly distressed, were shown during the 43-year-old's trial at Canterbury Crown Court in September.

The witness who made the recording later told police they saw the youngster's face turning red as they were gripped around the neck, and that Liddle stopped after a couple of seconds when he suspected he was being filmed.

But Liddle, who has no previous convictions, maintained following his arrest that he had not strangled the child or meant "any malice".

He claimed the photo had been taken at an "incriminating angle" and the person responsible for the footage was "a compulsive liar".

Liddle, of Pelham Gardens, Folkestone, denied one offence of child cruelty but was found guilty by a jury on an 11 to one majority verdict after deliberating for just under seven hours.

A second charge of assault by beating was ordered to be left on the court file.

Recorder Amy Nicholson had warned Liddle, who lives with his dad, that he faced jail when she adjourned sentencing for a probation report - and on Friday when he returned to court she told him prison was inevitable for such a serious offence.

Jailing him for 18 months, she added that his lack of insight and understanding meant there were "serious concerns" about the risk he posed to children.

"You continue to maintain that this was just tickling, an echo of the rough-play you experienced as a child," the judge told Liddle, who was allowed to remain seated in the dock due to his mobility issues.

"You could not then and still cannot see any harm in your behaviour. But what you did was extremely harmful indeed and it is fortunate indeed that [the witness] was intelligent enough, sensible enough, and quick-thinking enough to record what you did.

"The footage shows the child was in real distress and that should have been obvious to you. You are not safe to be around children and you will not be safe until you have insight into your offending.

"It's not a question of you admitting what you have done but you have to appreciate and understand the harmful impact of your behaviour.

"It is clear from the probation report that you don't think you have done anything wrong, and the author has expressed serious concerns about the risk you pose."

Prosecutor James Ross told the court the photo showed "some form of choking or interference" with the youngster's neck.

"It is clear from the probation report that you don't think you have done anything wrong...”

"The Crown submits significant force was used, albeit for a reasonably short period of time but enough to leave the marks seen by the doctor," he said.

The image was forwarded to police and when the victim was later examined, three "linear" marks measuring between one-and-a-half and three centimetres were visible on the right side of the neck.

Paediatrician Dr Elza Samuilova told the court the haemorrhages were "very concerning" and "usually caused by strangulation."

Surrounding them were very small, "pin-prick" marks usually caused when pressure is applied and blood vessels burst, she added.

Liddle "absolutely denied any wrongdoing" when interviewed by police, the jury heard, and claimed to be tickling the child's collarbone.

Mr Ross said he told officers the photo had been taken at an angle which made it look "more incriminating" than it actually was.

"I was only tickling. I wasn't strangling. It's very easy to take a photo out of context," Liddle claimed.

Asked about the video in which he jumped with the child between his feet, Liddle, who has scoliosis and uses a walking stick, said the child was not distressed but laughing.

"I was only tickling. I wasn't strangling. It's very easy to take a photo out of context...”

He added that his feet were giving “a gentle squeeze".

Liddle also told police he had "jokingly" put his hand over the youngster's mouth for "half a second", and at his trial demonstrated that although his hand had also covered the child's nose, his fingers had been spread apart allowing for any speech or breathing.

Refuting he had harmed the child in any way, Liddle told the jury: "I don't know what caused those marks. All I know is I didn't strangle. I didn't put my hands around their neck.

"As to how they got those marks, I can't tell you."

Daniel Cohen, defending, told the court it was "difficult" to ascertain the exact amount of force applied to the child's neck but it was "limited in duration".

At the time of the incident, child cruelty carried a maximum jail term of 10 years. It has since been increased to 14 years by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill but the law change - inspired by double amputee and child abuse victim Tony Hudgell, from Kings Hill - did not come into force until 23 days after Liddle's offending.