Charged... Sort of. So now its all coming out.
Notifications OFF
After 2 years my person (thankfully not an immediate family member husband/son) has now been charged for possesion of images (a handful of cat C I believe) and is due in court in a couple of weeks for that. The intial offence came about through vigilantes and following a chat with a 'young girl'. He has told me that subsequent investigation found the 3 images with which he has been charged but also showed in fact there was communication with a large number of online profiles of 'young girls', which are still being investigated. Apparently there are thousands of messages, and 50+ profiles.
What surprises me about this is that the police have charged at this stage, and just with the images, when the rest would seem to be potentially much more serious. It seems odd that they would not complete the investigation and then charge with the lot. It seems unlikely they wont charge with the rest given what hes said, but he has neurodivergence so i dont know if they are maybe taking that into account? or maybe thay are just charging witht he images because its pretty clear cut so no point waiting?
Has anyone else experienced this?
Despite having been saying consistently for the last two years he has no sexual interest in children, he has now admitted that if he had to stand up in court and was asked if he was sexually atttracted to young teenage girls he would have to admit that he was. He maintains he would never act on that though. While Ive tried to support him personally - from a definite distance - this admission seriously changes the situation as i have a young teenage daughter and there is no way he's going to be able to see her in the near future if at all ever (not that he does anyway, but he has expressed that he wants to know the kids)
This is all so hard and he isnt even a particularly close family emeber so I cant imagine how much harder it must be of its your partner or child.
love to you all
What surprises me about this is that the police have charged at this stage, and just with the images, when the rest would seem to be potentially much more serious. It seems odd that they would not complete the investigation and then charge with the lot. It seems unlikely they wont charge with the rest given what hes said, but he has neurodivergence so i dont know if they are maybe taking that into account? or maybe thay are just charging witht he images because its pretty clear cut so no point waiting?
Has anyone else experienced this?
Despite having been saying consistently for the last two years he has no sexual interest in children, he has now admitted that if he had to stand up in court and was asked if he was sexually atttracted to young teenage girls he would have to admit that he was. He maintains he would never act on that though. While Ive tried to support him personally - from a definite distance - this admission seriously changes the situation as i have a young teenage daughter and there is no way he's going to be able to see her in the near future if at all ever (not that he does anyway, but he has expressed that he wants to know the kids)
This is all so hard and he isnt even a particularly close family emeber so I cant imagine how much harder it must be of its your partner or child.
love to you all
Hi,
Just replying to the part around charges when other offences have been committed. My person wasn't charged with some offences that he committed. The judge made reference and told the prosecution that they either needed to charge him with these and adjourn court or dismiss the other evidence. It might be worth speaking with someone closer to your relative who can discuss this with his solicitor. It doesn't really make any sense to go as far as sentencing to then have to start the process again for the communication offences.
In terms of your daughter, if you choose for them to have contact you should supervise to mitigate any risk. Only you know what is right for the dynamics of your family xxx
Just replying to the part around charges when other offences have been committed. My person wasn't charged with some offences that he committed. The judge made reference and told the prosecution that they either needed to charge him with these and adjourn court or dismiss the other evidence. It might be worth speaking with someone closer to your relative who can discuss this with his solicitor. It doesn't really make any sense to go as far as sentencing to then have to start the process again for the communication offences.
In terms of your daughter, if you choose for them to have contact you should supervise to mitigate any risk. Only you know what is right for the dynamics of your family xxx
Thank you @distressed. It does seem odd to me. We will see in a week, though I still cant really understand the thinking here.
Re my daughter - no way is he seeing her. Supervised or not.
Re my daughter - no way is he seeing her. Supervised or not.