Solicitors and not guilty pleas
Notifications OFFPost deleted by user
A family member of mine was recently convicted for inciting sexual activity with a minor.
His was also a decoy, he was approached by them and no arrangements to meet etc.
He had a good defence and maintained his innocence throughout but openly admitted the account which messages were sent on was his, and that he had sent some messages to this decoy before things became sexual. The sexual messages could not be linked to his IP address and he had a solid alibi for the time and date of one of the messages. He had a number of character witnesses. The solicitor recommended a guilty plea.
He was found guilty.
I can never say 100% whether or not he committed the crime but the liklihood in my opinion is that he didn't but did cross a line by messaging someone he knew to be underage (hope that makes sense).
I think this is a relevant story for you/your partner as it's important to remember the jury will come into this with their own biases and will jump to conclusions about things that aren't against the law but paint someone in a bad light. It is very difficult to be found not guilty if there is anything linking you to the messages from what I have seen.
In terms of intent versus guilty, regardless on his intent if he sent the messages, he is guilty. He has done the thing he is accused of regardless of intent.
I think if you plead guilty you can do a letter of accountability to the judge yo tell your story but as far as I'm aware that's the only opportunity you have to explain what happened.
I hope some of this is helpful xx
His was also a decoy, he was approached by them and no arrangements to meet etc.
He had a good defence and maintained his innocence throughout but openly admitted the account which messages were sent on was his, and that he had sent some messages to this decoy before things became sexual. The sexual messages could not be linked to his IP address and he had a solid alibi for the time and date of one of the messages. He had a number of character witnesses. The solicitor recommended a guilty plea.
He was found guilty.
I can never say 100% whether or not he committed the crime but the liklihood in my opinion is that he didn't but did cross a line by messaging someone he knew to be underage (hope that makes sense).
I think this is a relevant story for you/your partner as it's important to remember the jury will come into this with their own biases and will jump to conclusions about things that aren't against the law but paint someone in a bad light. It is very difficult to be found not guilty if there is anything linking you to the messages from what I have seen.
In terms of intent versus guilty, regardless on his intent if he sent the messages, he is guilty. He has done the thing he is accused of regardless of intent.
I think if you plead guilty you can do a letter of accountability to the judge yo tell your story but as far as I'm aware that's the only opportunity you have to explain what happened.
I hope some of this is helpful xx
Post deleted by user
If the chat was about sexual activity with a child, they could push for facilitating or commissioning a sex offence against a child. Could that be the charge they are pushing for?
Otherwise if it's communication with an officer pretending to be a child, then it should be down as attempted sexual communication as with no actual child it can only ever be deemed as an attempt.
Otherwise if it's communication with an officer pretending to be a child, then it should be down as attempted sexual communication as with no actual child it can only ever be deemed as an attempt.
From what iv read your confused about the charges?? I don't really know much about this type of area tbb but can give advice about how police and CPS work with charges from personal experience.
Iv got 2 examples from my own experiences.. I had a charge of GBH with intent. I plead not guilty to that because it wasn't with intent. I didn't set out to break bones, that wasn't my plan. I then got a plea deal with the CPS at last minute to GBH (section 18) as if it went to trial the evidence of the intent part was very weak so would never have stuck.
PWITS of class A - small amount found but scales found with them. Again got a plea deal with CPS as the supply part would never have stuck because the only evidence there was the scales,so got dropped to possession.
What im trying to say is that they always try and push for a higher conviction,and sometimes there may be no evidence for these higher charges. But I can tell you that a judge in Crown Court almost instructs the jury on what verdict to come back with dependent on evidence when on trial. But if the evidence is weak to start with and you plead not guilty, the CPS will do a plea bargain as they see it's too risky to get it all thrown out. Hope this helps a bit xx
Iv got 2 examples from my own experiences.. I had a charge of GBH with intent. I plead not guilty to that because it wasn't with intent. I didn't set out to break bones, that wasn't my plan. I then got a plea deal with the CPS at last minute to GBH (section 18) as if it went to trial the evidence of the intent part was very weak so would never have stuck.
PWITS of class A - small amount found but scales found with them. Again got a plea deal with CPS as the supply part would never have stuck because the only evidence there was the scales,so got dropped to possession.
What im trying to say is that they always try and push for a higher conviction,and sometimes there may be no evidence for these higher charges. But I can tell you that a judge in Crown Court almost instructs the jury on what verdict to come back with dependent on evidence when on trial. But if the evidence is weak to start with and you plead not guilty, the CPS will do a plea bargain as they see it's too risky to get it all thrown out. Hope this helps a bit xx
Post deleted by user
Hopefully the evidence will show that no arrangements were actually made and you will have a positive outcome..
I stated my family members charge wrong - it was attempting to incite as it was a decoy not an actual child.
Another thing to consider is length of time. My family member had his plea hearing around 2 years before it finally went to trial! The time in limbo is a sentence in itself.
Whilst I agree with Lee that rushing through to get it over with isn't wise, the time and emotional toll it takes to go through a trial is definitely something to be aware of. If my family member had pleaded guilty he would likely have had the same outcome (9months suspended) and already be 2 years through the 10 years on the SOR. It was a tough decision for him but he decided he couldn't live with accepting guilt for something he's adamant he hasn't done.
I stated my family members charge wrong - it was attempting to incite as it was a decoy not an actual child.
Another thing to consider is length of time. My family member had his plea hearing around 2 years before it finally went to trial! The time in limbo is a sentence in itself.
Whilst I agree with Lee that rushing through to get it over with isn't wise, the time and emotional toll it takes to go through a trial is definitely something to be aware of. If my family member had pleaded guilty he would likely have had the same outcome (9months suspended) and already be 2 years through the 10 years on the SOR. It was a tough decision for him but he decided he couldn't live with accepting guilt for something he's adamant he hasn't done.
Post deleted by user
Post deleted by user
Post deleted by user
Morning SAL,
I am no legal expert so I could be very wrong and apologies if my comment is unhelpful. What has your solicitor suggested your partner plead?
For me, I understand that the charge is not relation to an attempt to meet, but rather your partner has "encouraged/suggested" an attempt to sexually abuse a child. Although he states it was during role play, there was still a sexualised conversation about a child. The charge stands regardless of whether your partner thought it would actually happen or not as CPS guidelines state "the proof of an arrangement or facilitation is not dependent on the possibility of carrying it out", and the proof, as such would be that your partner was of “mens rea”/within his senses when having the conversation.
As I said, sorry if this is unhelpful but this is how I understand the charge.
x
I am no legal expert so I could be very wrong and apologies if my comment is unhelpful. What has your solicitor suggested your partner plead?
For me, I understand that the charge is not relation to an attempt to meet, but rather your partner has "encouraged/suggested" an attempt to sexually abuse a child. Although he states it was during role play, there was still a sexualised conversation about a child. The charge stands regardless of whether your partner thought it would actually happen or not as CPS guidelines state "the proof of an arrangement or facilitation is not dependent on the possibility of carrying it out", and the proof, as such would be that your partner was of “mens rea”/within his senses when having the conversation.
As I said, sorry if this is unhelpful but this is how I understand the charge.
x
Post deleted by user
Post deleted by user
Post deleted by user
Hi Sal,
You're damn right, it is incredibly hard but you are doing an amazing job! It's so hard not to battle emotions during the whole of this ordeal, and on top I feel there's an added pressure of retraining as legal experts just to understand anything.
I see but I think your husband has misunderstood the charges then. He is not being charged to meet or for an attempt to meet. As he said, this was brushed off and shut down so no charge for this can be brought. The charge that has been made is that he has facilitied someone else to physically interact with a child. Whether he is present or not, the charge put to him is for not stopping or reporting someone when they've discussed a child in a sexualised manner.
I think even in role-play, discussing a child in a sexualised manner is illegal.
X
You're damn right, it is incredibly hard but you are doing an amazing job! It's so hard not to battle emotions during the whole of this ordeal, and on top I feel there's an added pressure of retraining as legal experts just to understand anything.
I see but I think your husband has misunderstood the charges then. He is not being charged to meet or for an attempt to meet. As he said, this was brushed off and shut down so no charge for this can be brought. The charge that has been made is that he has facilitied someone else to physically interact with a child. Whether he is present or not, the charge put to him is for not stopping or reporting someone when they've discussed a child in a sexualised manner.
I think even in role-play, discussing a child in a sexualised manner is illegal.
X
Post deleted by user
Post deleted by user