MAKING/POSSESSION
Notifications OFF
Hi so my OH is at Crown Court on Tuesday for first appearance, he is going to plea not guilty after discussion with his barrister. 8 charges 3 for Making, 1 extreme 1 prohibited 3 distribution.
These were watsapp messages. Does anybody have any experience or advice, so the 3 making charges, the solicitor said you can only be guilty of that if you knew they were likely indecent or had knowledge they might be prior to making. Which as they were sent unsolicited with no mention of the contents, he could argue these charges, but would the CPS just change the charges to possession or does it not work like that?
I was going to attend with him, but with the teacher strike I'll stay home with the kids.
He's also going to attempt to get bail conditions removed, we had them varied at Magistrates and he was allowed to return home and have unsupervised with u18 with consent.
These were watsapp messages. Does anybody have any experience or advice, so the 3 making charges, the solicitor said you can only be guilty of that if you knew they were likely indecent or had knowledge they might be prior to making. Which as they were sent unsolicited with no mention of the contents, he could argue these charges, but would the CPS just change the charges to possession or does it not work like that?
I was going to attend with him, but with the teacher strike I'll stay home with the kids.
He's also going to attempt to get bail conditions removed, we had them varied at Magistrates and he was allowed to return home and have unsupervised with u18 with consent.
Are the making and distribution charges for the same images/videos? Good luck for Tuesday xxx
Hi
Yes they are, watsapp images that were sent in a group and forwarded on
Yes they are, watsapp images that were sent in a group and forwarded on
This is based solely on my knowledge of WhatsApp, my person was communication so no knowledge of how it works legally for images. So when you forward on an item in WhatsApp it automatically creates another copy on your phone. If I ever need to create more storage on my phone it will show media in WhatsApp as many times as I've sent it on, for example if I sent a picture or video of baby to 4 people it would show the original picture and then another 4 copies. For this reason I believe that the solicitor should be concentrating on having the charges dropped completely based on the content of them rather than the fact your oh didn't know what they were before receiving them. I hope this helps xxx
Hi,
So he had the auto download turned off, so it didn't automatically save to device, just stayed within watsapp thread, in this situation its daft images shared between family an friends. However we find ourselves in this sh1tstorm and the police don't seem to care whatever the situation is.
No other members on the watsapp group have been questioned. Despite being actually named on the evidence sheet which says who sent them.
So he had the auto download turned off, so it didn't automatically save to device, just stayed within watsapp thread, in this situation its daft images shared between family an friends. However we find ourselves in this sh1tstorm and the police don't seem to care whatever the situation is.
No other members on the watsapp group have been questioned. Despite being actually named on the evidence sheet which says who sent them.
Post deleted
Post deleted
Thanks Lee,
So as the solicitor explained to us he can't deny having them or forwarding some of them on as they are on the watsapp thread.
We are getting an expert to examine the images to firstly see if we can reclassify them or even challenge if they are even indecent.
OH hadn't requested them or had any knowledge they could even be classed as indecent or prohibited, so that could be a defence for Making.
But as you know it's an absolute minefield and the police will pull every dirty trick in the book to ensure a prosecution.
But it's also been explained that any trial would probably be in 12 months time
So as the solicitor explained to us he can't deny having them or forwarding some of them on as they are on the watsapp thread.
We are getting an expert to examine the images to firstly see if we can reclassify them or even challenge if they are even indecent.
OH hadn't requested them or had any knowledge they could even be classed as indecent or prohibited, so that could be a defence for Making.
But as you know it's an absolute minefield and the police will pull every dirty trick in the book to ensure a prosecution.
But it's also been explained that any trial would probably be in 12 months time
Post deleted by user
Post deleted by user
How did the police even know about these WhatsApp messages??
this all seems desperately unfair.
Especially given what we know goes on in police WhatsApp groups.
ugh
this all seems desperately unfair.
Especially given what we know goes on in police WhatsApp groups.
ugh
Hope for the future,
I've sent you a private message, not sure if you received it though, it's first time I've tried the feature
I've sent you a private message, not sure if you received it though, it's first time I've tried the feature
Post deleted by user
Also turned off auto download. Never knew this was a thing. Thanks for the tip. X
Good luck today xx
Thinking of you today, everything crossed for the best outcome possible xx
Thought I'd put an update on the post.
We paid for an independent inspection of the images. The ex police inspectors report said they were obviously not for sexual gratification and looked like crude humour jokes that are commonly passed around in watsapp groups.
This gave us great hope to support OH not guilty plea.
But no! CPS said he wasn't an expert and that they were sticking with OIC descriptions as he is an expert.
The expert OIC had included a video of my youngest son with no nappy on, which he thought was also an indecent image, thankfully I was able to clarify that it certainly was not and it was a completely innocent video of my child on holiday. Despite that he left mention of it in the prosecution case.
2 separate judges questioned the public interest in the case 1 said he was surprised that the images had been classified in such a way.
Forensic investigation proved no searches or indication of looking or requesting iioc. OH never been in trouble before.
But CPS are still continuing with the charges.
We will be putting our trust in the Jury to make the correct decision.
All bail conditions were removed at previous hearings and Social services not involved after the first meeting x
We paid for an independent inspection of the images. The ex police inspectors report said they were obviously not for sexual gratification and looked like crude humour jokes that are commonly passed around in watsapp groups.
This gave us great hope to support OH not guilty plea.
But no! CPS said he wasn't an expert and that they were sticking with OIC descriptions as he is an expert.
The expert OIC had included a video of my youngest son with no nappy on, which he thought was also an indecent image, thankfully I was able to clarify that it certainly was not and it was a completely innocent video of my child on holiday. Despite that he left mention of it in the prosecution case.
2 separate judges questioned the public interest in the case 1 said he was surprised that the images had been classified in such a way.
Forensic investigation proved no searches or indication of looking or requesting iioc. OH never been in trouble before.
But CPS are still continuing with the charges.
We will be putting our trust in the Jury to make the correct decision.
All bail conditions were removed at previous hearings and Social services not involved after the first meeting x
I know not all judges will be the same nor will events be the same but when similar crude things were brought into my partner's case the judge was quite dismissive and annoyed towards the prosecution stating they were clearly NOT for gratification which is reassuring, I'm sure the judge will have seen many cases similar so may help lead the jury and question the prosecution. It's so sick that they try and turn personal videos into something sinister, they really do clutch at straws sometimes!
Hi Baffled,
Thanks for reply, at first hearing the judge stopped proceedings and said the images needed to be viewed and said that CPS really needed to consider the public interests, he said are we to see the courts flooded by people for sending 'daft' videos.
We had them viewed by an ex police inspector, he reported that using a common sense approach it was quite obvious that the images were not Iioc.
We returned to court to again, different judge, but he had very similar attitude, asked if cps thought this was a good use of courts time, our solicitor was hopeful that it could be thrown out. But no CPS are still pursuing a conviction. They recommend a low level community order if he pleaded guilty.
We have the pre trial hearing on 24th August unless it is cancelled again.
This has turned our world upside down, a fortune in solicitor fees so far and if OH is found guilty, he could lose his job, he's been suspended since arrest 15 months ago
Thanks for reply, at first hearing the judge stopped proceedings and said the images needed to be viewed and said that CPS really needed to consider the public interests, he said are we to see the courts flooded by people for sending 'daft' videos.
We had them viewed by an ex police inspector, he reported that using a common sense approach it was quite obvious that the images were not Iioc.
We returned to court to again, different judge, but he had very similar attitude, asked if cps thought this was a good use of courts time, our solicitor was hopeful that it could be thrown out. But no CPS are still pursuing a conviction. They recommend a low level community order if he pleaded guilty.
We have the pre trial hearing on 24th August unless it is cancelled again.
This has turned our world upside down, a fortune in solicitor fees so far and if OH is found guilty, he could lose his job, he's been suspended since arrest 15 months ago