Family and Friends Forum

Hello,

Sorry you find yourself here. In regards to innocence - was he not the person having the conversation or did he not believe the decoy was underage? Is there any chance he can withdraw his plea (it would be an application to the court to vacate the plea) this isn't always accepted though.

My husband initially kept saying he didn't do what the police said - his was also chat with decoy - but twice, 18 months apart. He was saying that he knew they weren't minors, that he was on these chats calling people out as fake (I've seen this excuse used a few times though, so not sure if he is just saying that) and in one of the decoy chats he does say that he knows they're not minors and the reasons why. I don't think it helped that the police kept referring to online grooming and in his mind, he had no intention to meet or ask for photos or videos - he maintains that he's never asked for those, even with the adults he was chatting with. I think the penny has finally dropped though, that what he did in the eyes of the law is illegal. So although in his mind, he didn't have any intention, that bit doesn't matter as he did chat inappropriately with them. He knows he's been an idiot.

It does sound like your person is in denial, rather than innocent. I have no advice, sorry, on how to proceed. Could you get them to speak to someone on the Stop It Now helpline?

Communication cases are so complex, especially if there is a perceived intent to meet.

On one had through the eyes of the law if there if there is nothing in the conversation that would allow them to distinguish the conversation being any different from anyone with genuine intent - They have a strong case.

Yet trial is conviction through reasonable doubt, so is it without doubt that they are guilt of the crime committed. The defence would argue, yes there was a conversation but was there ever any intent to meet or act on the conversation. The prosecution would be arguing that the conversation in itself is the offence.

I go round in circles with my person's case, his is slightly different as he spoke to an adult about a child. I think there is less ambiguity if the conversation is directly with a child as soon as the age is known and as soon as a sexual conversation happens a crime has been committed.

With cases like this it is difficult because there are only really 2 defences - it wasn't me or I didn't know they were minors (this one very difficult to prove). If it's a case of it not being them then forensics will be the focus of the prosecution - this is my case. It very much depends on what's in the evidence pack and how the barrister will convince a jury that they didn't do what they're being accused of. I think a lot of people plead guilty because cases like this are viewed as open/shut to solicitors and barristers who I believe tend to have personal feelings about cases like this which overspill into their practice. If your partner is truly not guilty then he should do his utmost to try and get the guilty plea overturned.