Family and Friends Forum

Hi - it may be that there are things that the police could class as indecent but but we may not class as such. So teenagers in swim wear - apparently that can be classed by police as indecent, or worth another questioning. Just make sure that he has a solicitor when being questioned - under no circumstances let him be questioned without one. My partner was questioned and tried to be helpful and didn’t get a solicitor and it has turned into a total nightmare. I now know why solicitors advise to go “no comment” as under stress people say such stupid things

I wholeheartedly agree with Big Sigh, please please ensure he has a decent solicitor with him. When someone is under that kind of stress it’s not unknown for people to ‘confess’ to all sorts of misdemeanours, just to make things ‘go away’. Don’t forget the police have had lots of training to get people to agree to their suggestions. Once things have been said by your husband it’s a hell of a job to reverse if ever.

Hi Christina. My partner still under investigation. Interviewed but not charged or bailed and devices been sent off. This was December so 6 months ago. I only know what my partner telling me so whilst I mostly believe him, I am also keeping an open mind until devices back. He says he looked at naked images from a website that is legal with adults on it. There are “sections” on there for a variety of “tastes”, one of which is teenage girls. However website very clearly states that everyone is 18 or over (so an adult). However when a picture from the site is separated from the site (ie copied on to a device) it isn’t clear it’s from that website. I have looked up the website and is in top 40 most visited websites in the world (along with google etc). Then he has looked at another website with clothed teenagers on there who are under 18 (probably) and saved pictures from there. Again the website says nothing on there is “indecent”. When being interviewed he can’t remember properly what he said. I think he thought what he was doing was legal so in the interview has made it far worse for himself. He didn’t think clothed people were indecent. It’s all very yuk as I type this but I am not sure (assuming he is telling truth) whether it warrants 5 years on SOR, which is what he would get if convicted. Category C images seem to encompass so much - so is a selfie of a 15 year old indecent? Who knows. I know far more about porn now than I ever wanted to - websites full of teenage girls whose pictures have been taken from FB - one very good reason not to let your kids have social media accounts!

Partner says there will be more images on there - but all from the legal site. When police came he hadn’t been doing this for a while so nothing has been found on first look through his devices. So it may come down to the computer forensics and whether he can demonstrate where pics come from. Or he could be lying! I am totally sick of it all.

I think it depends on the jury at the end of the day and what evidence is found.

My husband was convicted of 36 images, 3 being in the most serious category I think. The site was a legal site however cps couldn't even say where images were from even if from 1 site. I'm still bitter about this as technically he could have been on 36 different sites. We know that isn't the case but the cps couldn't say either way and how I understand it, the defendant needs to prove his innocence which he couldnt do. He was convicted of viewing and not saving

hi Rainboe - with cat A stuff, how would that be on a legal site? I thought if something was cat A then it would be pretty obvious it was illegal? Did you get your own computer expert report done?

sorry to ask so many questions - just feeling a bit panicky

It was a legal chat site where people posted a link which he clicked on and then the image opened. The chat site was about anything. It was the people on there that put things on. Yes got own report but that didn't show where the images came from either. No one knew where they came from

Oh I see. In my naivity I didn’t even know about chat sites before all this.



But it how could your partner know wat the link would show before he clicked it? That means anyone can send you anything and you click it thinking it’s a recipe or something and then it’s a cat A image. It seems in these cases people have to prove their innocence rather then their guilt be proved.

Were all images from the chat site that he was prosecuted for ?

Yes exactly and that's what he said that the links did not imply that they were of anything in particular as he had clicked on other links which were of normal things and even there was evidence to show this. There was no search history either so yes it is really about proving innocence. They didn't even have evidence that he had gone on the site. Unfortunately in cases like this the jury just sees one thing which I guess you cant blame them really. The evidence also shows that from the images viewed that it was over a course of 5 times therefore visited the site 5 times so I'm my opinion not as deeply engaged as others have been but again ss just think once 1 image viewed then just the same as others who have viewed 1000s.

Yes all images were from the chat site. We knew that but cps didn't and couldnt prove but like I said we couldnt prove otherwise. It should be the people who are putting them on the site that get caught but they never do

Hi christina

i think we are all looking for reassurance but none of us can get it. I want to know it’s all going to be ok but it’s all out of my control.

in terms of the images - I can’t remember when you got your knock and for what reason but I’m thinking it was fairly recently? What is a little strange is that the police have found images so quickly. If it was from stuff years ago it would prob need to go to high tech unit to find that. Or even deleted stuff may need to go to another bit of the police to find it. Though perhaps your police force has its own software and trained people to do searches?



The solicitor will will give advice on what to do in interview. I think I read that solicitors take the view that you should let the evidence come to you - ie don’t say much at all.cant remember if you have kids and SS involved? If you do anything he says will be told to SS . Your criminal solicitor prob won’t have any experience with family law. So be aware that if he admits liking teenagers in any way eve if he hasn’t looked at images then SS will take that v seriously if you have kids. You say be has seen low level cat c. Cat C is Cat C - if he admits that then he is admitting viewing cat c images, which is illegal and he could be charged on that admission alone.

The cps couldnt show where images came from and unfortunately my husband still got convicted. There was no proof of intention either as so search history. I did lots of research whilst waiting for the results to come back. Unfortunately in cases like this the jury believe the cps

They had been saved to the phone memory automatically. The cps accepted that could happen therefore was convicted of viewing/making rather than possession. If images are in temporary files then I've been told there is a good defence however they would have still been viewed and if there are thousands of images in temp files I would assume the person would have therefore viewed intentionally? Therefore if it's only a handful then solicitor would probably say there is a good defence x