Family and Friends Forum

Please x

Couldn't just read your post without responding x

Each one of our journeys can be similar, can be completely different, and the outcome can be miles apart unfortunately we have no control over this part,

The police and CPS can advise what they want but the only person who can decide on the charges is the judge

I hope they will take the mitigating factors in to consideration x



Sorry not much advise xx

My oh was 5 images we were able to get our own cyber expert to check the phone which he was able to prove it had never been searched and could only retrieve by an expert, it was 5 images, he was 1 year supervision 1 year sor 180 hours community service and there was no shpo

I would seek legal advice via the solicitor wether shpo can run longer than the SOR. I thought that had to ja e the same duration

Our solicitor organised it for us

Hi, my experience was that when it comes to downloading illegal content but not opening it to look at isn't a defence. That's what we were told. I'm sorry you're going through this. X

When my OH was being charged I spoke to my works legal team. They told me to prosecute the person acessing the website that there would need to know that there would be a possibility that they were entering an illegal website or content. And also they had to prove intent. Though they are not specialists, perhaps a question for your solicitor.

Its interesting to know what others have been told by professionals.

An offence has still been committed when a download happens, with intent or not.

My Oh's crime happened on a popular social media platform. No one uses social media thinking they will open IIOC.

I was told

'As soon as he clicked he committed a crime'

I'm not sure if you could get the duplicates erased from the charges, I'm in Scotland and I don't think you can be charged for duplicates here.

It is interesting. I did read on a legal website that they had to prove intent but not sure now where i read it now. It does seem unfair that you can break the law without a chance not to.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

I think the confusion arises because of the difference between possession and 'making' of images.

Very few people are now charged with possession, because there are a lot of defences to it. e.g. if it was an unsolicted image, then you can't be charged with possession, but you CAN be charged with 'making' an image. It all comes down to how the courts have interpreted that very vague word - making.

So when we read about people who were sent unsolicted images, it may be correct for their solicitor to have told them they have a defence against possession, but they don't have a defence against making. Even the solicitor themselves might not understand the difference.



Making

“To make” has been widely interpreted by the courts and can include the following:

opening an attachment to an email containing an image: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen: R v Smith; R v Jayson [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 13storing an image in a directory on a computer: Atkins v DPP; Goodland v DPP [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 248accessing a pornographic website in which indecent images appeared by way of automatic “pop-up” mechanism: R v Harrison [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 29receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a grouplive-streaming images of children

The breadth of what constitutes “making” – see below, Selection of Charges – means it will often be the appropriate charge rather than “possession”. When a device is seized, it may be the case that an image is stored in such a way that it is not possible to say that the suspect possessed it, because it is not accessible to them. Even if it is not accessible, however, the evidence may show that they had knowingly “made” the image.