There have been some landmark cases that have applied the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 with varying effect; the most important ones are listed below.
Determination of the Age of a Child
The age of a child is ultimately for the jury to determine. See R v Land [1998] 1 Cr App R 301 Archbold 31 – 109 and R v Charles William Owen (1988) 86 Cr App R 291 Archbold 31 – 108a.
Providing a Password to Access Pornography is ‘Showing’
In the case of Fellows and Arnold [1997] 1 Cr App R 244 providing another with a password to enable him to access pornographic data stored on a computer was said to be ‘showing’ him the data.
Downloading or Printing is Making an Image
The downloading and/or printing of indecent images of children from the internet, is capable of amounting to an offence of ‘making’ the image contrary to section 1 (1) (a) of the PCA 1978. See R v Bowden [2000] 1 Cr App R 438, Archbold 31 – 108a.
Knowledge is Required for Making or Possessing an Image
Atkins v DPP; Goodlands v DPP [2000] 2 Cr App R 248 stated that knowledge was an essential ingredient of the offences of ‘making’ and /or possessing indecent photographs of children. Atkins v DPP also dealt with the legitimate reason defence. Archbold 31 – 108a.
Downloading an Image is Making
The case of R v Westgarth Smith; Jayson [2002] EWCA Crim 683 stated that downloading an image that was capable of being converted into a photograph on to a screen or opening an email attachment is an act of making that image, subject to the requisite mens rea, Archbold 31 – 108a.
The Categorisation of Indecent Images of Children
The case of R v Oliver, Hartrey and Baldwin Times Law Report, 6 December 2002 divided indecent images of children into five categories, and gave sentencing guidelines based on the categories. The sentencing guidelines have been amended by guidance from the Sentencing Council.
Incite to Distribute Indecent Images
In R (on behalf of O’Shea) v Coventry Magistrates’ Court [2004] EWHC Admin 905 the Divisional Court accepted that it was possible to incite another to distribute indecent images of children even where the ‘purchase’ of images was a fully-automated process.
Custody and Control Required for Possession of an Indecent Image
In R v Porter [2006] EWCA Crim 560 to have possession of an image you should have custody or control of it. Crown Prosecution Service v LR [2010] EWCA Crim 924
Unfair for Prosecution of an Individual when Publisher or Retailer were not Prosecuted
Where an indecent image is of a child; prosecutors should charge the suspect with an offence contrary to section 1 PCA 1978 or section 160 CJA 1988 and not a charge of extreme pornography.
See R v Stephen Neal [2011] EWCA Crim 461 where the Court of Appeal held that it was unfair for an individual purchaser of a book to be prosecuted for possession of photographs in that book when the publisher and / or the retailer were not prosecuted.
About Athena Forensics
For information on our computer forensic and mobile phone forensic services or if you require any advice or assistance please contact a member of our team on 0845 882 7386 or via email on enquiries@athenaforensics.co.uk, further details are available on our contact us page.
Our client’s confidentiality is of the utmost importance. All correspondence is treated with discretion, from initial contact to the conclusion of any computer forensics investigation.
Our digital forensics experts are fully aware of the significance and importance of the information that they encounter and we have been accredited to ISO 9001 for 10 years.
Our forensic experts are all security cleared and we offer non-disclosure agreements if required. Our premises along with our security procedures have been inspected and approved by law enforcement agencies.
Athena Forensics do not disclose personal information to other companies or suppliers.
https://athenaforensics.co.uk/service/mobile-phone-forensic-experts/
https://athenaforensics.co.uk/service/computer-forensic-experts/
