Family and Friends Forum

My partner got I think 5. One each of the categories for making (downloading) and distribution (sharing), another for having prohibited material and one for animal images.

He got a two year suspended sentence (plead guilty) and ten years on SHPO and SOR. 200 hours community service.

I would say we think he was very close to custodial. He had I think a range of images over 10,000

Hi,



Mine was same as above only didn't distribute and didn't get any community hours but mine is past working age so don't no if that makes a difference xx

So my hubby is older, so he didn't get and community hours to work, I think cause of his age

Hi Chelsea 1, my partner was charged with downloading images, he pled guilty, he received 8 months suspended for 2 years, a 10 year SHPO and 10 year SOR, we did unfortunately end up in the local media, take care

Sorry forgot to say he had 1000 images of all categories, 14 a 21 b rest c

Hi lee1969,



I don't think our solicitor did, I don't think he did half or any of wat u have all been advising on here, I didn't half the information u have been telling us on here, hence me wishing I had found this site 3 years ago I think I could of understood alot more and been more prepared. I don't think we had any mitigating things to make it better other than pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity

Hi Lee,

Definitely, but then I think as far as my husbands solicitor was concerned with was did he have an addiction to downloading which it turns out he did, but then on the day of sentencing before we went into court he turned like cross at me and said that I could of walked away many women have, so I feel like he knew more than he told me, like I had read the charge sheet of wat he had downloaded like a,b and c and animal but I feel he knew more but no one has ever said, I don't no wat was in the pre sentence report, I probably didn't really listen well in court as I was terrified and was crying alot, now I feel like it's all too late

Hi, so he got 12 months suspended for 2 years ( 1 year nearly done thank god ) and 10 years on sorry and shpo. No disclosure Lee, just went to magistrates was told not to put in a plea and then crown 4/5 weeks later, and given that sentence, as I say I feel like he saw that many cases and to be fair his name does seem to pop up on defending people like my hubby in papers, if that makes sense that he just tells them wat to do, as we didn't no any better we followed his instructions, but to be fair it was him who told us my hubby would be reinterviewed before we would no the charges, he never said only if they found new stuff just he would need to be reinterpreted hence me saying that in the past.

Hi Lee,

If your second part about purchasing is for me, then I don't want to bother now as I don't think it will change anything, I just want to move forwards best way I can, I no he isn't a bad person just majorly messed up and he knows there r no more chances if he goes there again I can't do it, not with the battle I've been having with ss, it has well and truly messed my head up

Hi Lee,

I completely agree, we was worried thinking it might be custodial and thankful it wasn't xx now its all about recovery, like I say we are half way through his probation so I no its only a year to go and this 1 wasn't so bad x

My partner got legal aid and on the day of sentencing had a lawyer he never met and seemes quite new. Ofc we all have to start somewhere but it was a shame that my partner didn't have a familiar face and I felt that the lawyer was just going through the motions. And overall my partner didn't get any advice or help with his SHPO which has the condition that he cannot have contact with under 16s when he didn't have a contact offence.

I have seen some people have online only restrictions. I didn't ask for full disclosure- didn't know if I could since we are not married- so I'm not sure if and how much my partner was deemed a risk to children at the time of sentencing.

Thankfully the media were not involved but I think that was mostly because he didn't live in the county anymore. Also it was a big city and horrible to say he is not the only one in that area so I can only assume the media had bigger fish to fry....

What bothers me, and I have said on the forum before, is the fact the animal images is barely mentioned in court or probation. Ofc children are very much important. But why are not offenders banned from having pets or being around animals? If the logic is those who view iioc are a risk to children, why isnt the same logic placed on animals?

I am big animal lover and for me it is equally as sickening to iioc. Both examples demonstrate the victims had no voice and could not consent.

Sorry for the rant ....

Hi MajesticTopaz,

It does seem odd that there's no restrictions placed on animals and I totally sympathise because I myself love animals. It's probably because animals don't really have rights and are cared about as much as they should, we see it time and time again about people who have severely made animals suffer and they just get a smack on the wrist and a ban for a few years.

To be honest the whole entire system needs reforming. It's been what? Less than 10 years? Since laws regarding iioc online etc and all the rest of it that goes along with it, the men facing investigation and trials/punishment are merely guinea pigs to it in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure when or how change will come because I can't see such a taboo subject being a cause for everyone to fight for change but reading everyone's stories I think a huge change needs to happen in the way it's investigated and treated and soon.

Just seen in the news that someone was banned from having pets after being found with illegal animal images and videos. The article didn't say if iiocs were involved so I assume not.

Ofc there may be more to the article about why a ban was in place but is another example where why can't this approach be for everyone caught with such images and videos?

And with your cases/sentences - do you have any children? Could they see them after? Could they come back home and live with children under the same roof?

I am at the begining of my journey as knock happened few days ago, so we have everything ahead od us.

My point is I don't understand why animal images are not taken as seriously as with children. Offenders are deemed contact risks (unless there has been an assessment) and majority seem to have the no contact requirement on a SHPO regardless. If the courts and authorities (SS etc) go for the precautionary approach then why can't the same mind set be towards animals?

I do think offenders need to be assessed as whether they should have contact/access to children and for animals. Because it can not be denied that there are going to be a number that are a contact risk.

Also if my partner is banned from being around his kids but there was no concern he had a pet or whether was a risk to the dog that to me isnt fair.

Being banned from pets (until there is an assessment to show no risk) I feel is another punishment that should be out on offenders , in my opinion.

Hi has anyone been through the same as us and what was the out come please.

my husband is currently been investigated and has had 1 count of talking to the a police decoy and a couple of pictures of animals no iioc.

We are still in the early stage of the investigation, he currently lives in the car as he is not allowed to stay the night, if he gets charged will he never be allowed to stop back at home ? As my youngest child is 10 and oldest 16

we have told all our family and children as to what is happening as we don’t keep secrets (apart from my husband) now we know.. he is currently getting counselling.

we have give the kids the worst out come to prepare them if it does happen

thanks

Hi lee, thanks for replying it was as a adult decoy

And we are considering moving so we can afford a caravan or camper van for him

Hi lee1969, thanks for your info, it’s someone who the police liason has put him in touch with. I will get him to look at the other things as well.

He has to go back to the police station this week so fingers crossed we get a few answers, I just hope they don’t send him to jail this week, as we need to try and sort the house and get everything sorted, it’s such a horrible experience this whole thing,just wish it didn’t take so long

and yes it was a police decoy talking about children he said he just got carried away with it all, says he only went on the once but that’s all it takes as we have found out

thanks again

Thankyou lee1969 for all your help

What happens if you go down for bail but they don’t want to see you ????

Lee1969, what is the outcome for talking to a decoy when they state they are 13? My OH had conversations over a few weeks, asked for phone number, rang and spoke....twice before travelling 170miles to meet! He said he was curious and knew it was a trap...also said sent photo of his face and car as he had nothing to lose!! Struggling to take it all in still and it's been 4 months.

Hello Bob,

Your situation sounds similar to mine and my partners. Both mine and his flat were searched after he had chatted to an adult and got drawn into a conversation about a child. This was back in July and I feel we are still no further forward. His bail has been extended twice so they are still investigating but life as we knew it is no more.

As the partner you only know what your other half tells you. Your mind will be all over the place.

I hope you can talk to each other openly and have support as it's a lonely place when you feel abandoned by others.

Take care of yourself and your own well being. Xx

Lostandconfused, sorry to hear of your predicament. I would say that if your husband was telling the truth that there would be evidence in his phone to suggest this, if he was fascinated with the whole stinging process from vigilante groups he will have looked at a lot of their content and there would be no iioc or searches for anything suggesting he was looking for anything illegal. As Lee said that defence would be very hard to prove. But if it is genuine then there won't be anything to contradict this but I don't know how well it would go down as it is still breaking the law agreeing to meet a minor? Maybe the nature of the conversations could play a part, if they wasn't sexual, I'm not sure. It's a very odd thing to do to play out a part in a sting if you are aware of the nature of them because they look humiliating and scary from the ones I've seen.

Hi lee1969

we went to the police station on the day and time they wanted us to go back when we got there the 2 police dealing with it were in another town, when the police phoned them they said they didn’t want to see him ????

We have told our solicitor and just waiting to find out what’s going on as we don’t know what is happening with it all

Thank you Lee1969 and BaffledB, it doesn't look good does it?!

it was a police decoy, he said he was weak and they kept pestering him to meet, he wasn't in a good mental place. The convo had sexual innuendos, emojis and a pic they posted, something to do with snakes. I don't know the full chat, and not sure I want to. He said he's not done anything like this before, never met anyone, just been in Chat rooms on and off when in a dark place.

My trust has gone so I don't know what to believe, we had an amazing relationship, and a good future, I just don't understand. He says he was breaking down and this was it playing out. His breakdown has been tough but he's getting back on with things now, I just feel I'm suspended in a vacuum not knowing where to turn.

thank you once again, I have no one to talk to about this, I read a lot here but never seen anything like what he's done, so I feel a bit better for reaching out. The wait continues...x

Lee1969, I am so sorry for your pain. You are right, I will read the chat when he's charged, I need to face it all so I can handle it when it all comes out. I don't think I've ever been so shocked as when the police knocked, I can't handle any further shocks.

It's the not knowing that kills right now, and the wait for what is inevitable. It's torture. Thank you so much for sharing, really appreciate it x

Hi lostand confused

My son was charged with the same. communcation and arranding to meet, he too was sent a lot of messages sayiing how nice he was , etc, he was also in a very dark place at the time and going through a divorce, unfortuenely he got a 30 month prison sentence.

Regarding sentencing and offences my partner got charged with:

*possession (even though they were deleted) and making (opening the picture) of 24 IIOC's. *Possession of 106 prohibited images (cartoon)

*encouraging someone (a decoy) to play a pornographic video when a child was in the room.

These offences were dated from 2007-2018, because they couldn't find an exact date so they went with when the computer was first switched on.

He got an 18 month custodial, 10 years on the SOR and SHPO.

Blue82 did you get any advice re deleted images?

If images have been deleted and inaccessible except by specialist software then they are not in the possession of the person responsible for the computer (R v Ross Warwick Porter).

There is no "making" offence for extreme porn images.

A good computer forensic person could well have destroyed the prosecution.

They can be very reasonable in cost and worth every penny.

Minzaal

My partner was convicted of having 5 images all of which were deleted.

In crown court he was severely castigated by the judge for concealing evidence. The point was made that he had had to known that the images were potentially illegal as he had gone to the trouble of deleting.

The onus is on the offender to report any abuse images voluntarily.

As soon as the images are downloaded the making offence is complete, whether they are stored or deleted.

He was told ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Snowdrop, I thought the same and I think that certain cases from the past in which outcomes as mentioned, the defendant has "gotten away with it" can not always be applied to every similar case. I suspect that maybe the mentioned case could be useful to those who have maybe been sent something they never asked for an deleted it but not for someone who had actively searched for images, downloaded and then deleted. However, the case he mentioned relates to floppy disks so I would imagine that the defendant would've searched and downloaded. Each judge is different and will rule differently.