A DAD who inflicted severe chemical burns on his newborn baby son by putting hot chilli sauce on his bottom has been jailed.

The 25-year-old man from the Amesbury area, who cannot be named to protect the child’s identity, admitted cruelty after denying the crime for almost two years.

He told police he put “Hot Diggidy Dog Hot Original Pepper Sauce” on the 27-day-old infant in an attempt to relieve the child’s constipation.

It caused a severe chemical burn but the father failed to seek medical help.

The infant was taken to Salisbury Hospital for a scheduled routine check-up five days later.

A nursing assistant noticed the wound and reported it. By this time the injury was so severe doctors had to perform a colostomy and reconstructive surgery to repair the damage.

Forensic burns consultant and plastic surgeon Colin Rayner said he had never seen anything like the injury in more than 3,000 burns cases.

Police arrested the father and the baby was taken into care. Officers searched the family’s home and found a soiled nappy and a syringe containing Capsaicin, the active ingredient in hot chilli peppers, in a bin.

It is highly irritant and can cause a “significant blistering burn” if left in contact with the skin for any length of time.

The defendant was “evasive and dishonest” in early interviews, only admitting he had done anything to the baby almost two years later, during family court proceedings. He told police he had used the syringe to put hot sauce on food, later saying he had applied sauce to the baby with his finger. The mother knew nothing about the incident as she was in the shower at the time, the court heard.

Prosecutor James Newton-Price said it was “exceptionally irresponsible”, even if the defendant had intended no harm.

He said the extreme severity of the injury, the obvious vulnerability of the baby, the pain and distress caused, and the failure to seek medical help were aggravating factors.

The defendant also admitted possessing 164 images and videos of people having sex with animals, which Judge Andrew Barnett described as vile and disgusting.

But the child cruelty was “by far and away the most serious, worrying and troubling offence”, the judge said.

“To put it mildly it was a gross error of judgment. It was a fantastically irresponsible thing to do to any child, let alone your own son.

“It was a ghastly way to behave to a child, and appalling it should be your own son.”

The court heard the medical outcome for the child in later life was still uncertain.

The defendant sobbed in the dock as he was jailed for three years at Salisbury Crown Court on Thursday. He received 28 months for child cruelty and eight months for possessing extreme pornography.

The court accepted there was no sexual motive behind the offence, and the judge was shown photos of the defendant having “positive” supervised contact with his son.

The Journal asked the judge to relax reporting restrictions to allow the paper to identify the defendant, but the request was rejected.

An initial charge of causing grievous bodily harm was dropped.