My Dad's arrest
Notifications OFF
Hi, my dad got the knock almost 3 months ago and was arrested under suspension of distributing IIOC. He watched a lot of sexual content online and told me and my mum it was probably through that or a link he accidentally clicked but I don't understand how this can cause it to distribute so if anyone knows anything about that if you can please help me understand all this. His solicitor told him to not hand over the password which is stopping the investigation from going further but the police are saying he could get put in for a year for holding back evidence. He can't live at home as there are children and CPS are involved. The bail conditions are going to be reviewed next week about him coming back home but they might extend it because they can't get into it. The solicitor is saying that he doesn't know what they will find on there so he shouldn't hand the password over but surely the police will get in eventually and my dad's just delaying the inevitable and making this go on longer for me and my family. Does anyone have any advise on what we can do or explain how the distribution can happen without my dad's knowledge? Thank you for listening and any help or message would be really appreciated, I hope all works our for us all
Distribution could happen through them being part of a group chat. Images seem to download automatically on many apps, unless the person changes their settings to stop it.
As for not providing the password to a device, the solicitors advice is really about balancing the probability of sentencing for that, versus what he might get if there is something illegal on there.
In the past, people have received sentences of around 9 months for not providing the password. For images, we see similar sentences on here, but very often they are suspended. But if there was evidence of other more serious offences on there, such as communication with a child, then the sentence could be 30-40 months, in which case taking a 9 month sentence and hoping the police cannot get in to the phone, would be the better option.
But as you say, it may just be delaying the inevitable. The police do have the ability to crack most devices, apart from the latest iphones, I think.
As for not providing the password to a device, the solicitors advice is really about balancing the probability of sentencing for that, versus what he might get if there is something illegal on there.
In the past, people have received sentences of around 9 months for not providing the password. For images, we see similar sentences on here, but very often they are suspended. But if there was evidence of other more serious offences on there, such as communication with a child, then the sentence could be 30-40 months, in which case taking a 9 month sentence and hoping the police cannot get in to the phone, would be the better option.
But as you say, it may just be delaying the inevitable. The police do have the ability to crack most devices, apart from the latest iphones, I think.
My partner was advised by his solicitor to say no comment to all questions, that includes giving passwords. my understanding is that by withholding the passwords it just means it will take the police longer to look into devices, my partner wasnt penalized for the passwords, tjo the judge did make a comment that my partner with held and implied this was a sign of lack of engaging with tje police.
I think apple devices are harder for police to work on, due to the additional security compared to Android. Not sure this might be he case here.
In terms of distribution, it's where there was an act of making the images available to others. My partner made a folder somewhere on the Internet, which thankfully no one accessed. But that was still a distribution charge regardless.
If he didn't have that folder I think possession and 'making' (aka download files) would have been all they could charge. Distribution has higher sentenceing implications compared to just possession and making.
The solicitor will be able to confirm if withholding password is grounds for further charges. I personally have not seen obstruction as a charge for others involved with iiocs.
I think apple devices are harder for police to work on, due to the additional security compared to Android. Not sure this might be he case here.
In terms of distribution, it's where there was an act of making the images available to others. My partner made a folder somewhere on the Internet, which thankfully no one accessed. But that was still a distribution charge regardless.
If he didn't have that folder I think possession and 'making' (aka download files) would have been all they could charge. Distribution has higher sentenceing implications compared to just possession and making.
The solicitor will be able to confirm if withholding password is grounds for further charges. I personally have not seen obstruction as a charge for others involved with iiocs.