Difference between possession and making
Notifications OFF
The charge against the person I know was possession rather than making. I know he received the images during chats but I don't know what platform he was using. Does a charge of possession mean he didn't open them or download them, as if so this would have been a charge of making images?
Finding it all very confusing but holding on to what he's told me which is he didn't look at them and deleted them, and hoping this is true. Does his charge reflect what he's told me?
Finding it all very confusing but holding on to what he's told me which is he didn't look at them and deleted them, and hoping this is true. Does his charge reflect what he's told me?
I believe from what I've been told (got an autistic son in the system) that "making" is downloading and possessing is having it in your possession. Not sure how you get such material in your possession without first downloading them but the system is very confusing. And so is the terminology as people hear "making" and assume they are creating such imagery and directly abusing somebody. Such a charge would be "producing" or "taking". "Distributing" is sharing. Possessing is owning and making is downloading.
If someone were to be, for example, sent illegal material without requesting or searching for it, and not open it I find it difficult to understand how they would be charged at all. But the law is very black and white with these matters.
If someone were to be, for example, sent illegal material without requesting or searching for it, and not open it I find it difficult to understand how they would be charged at all. But the law is very black and white with these matters.
Possession means they were in that person's "custody" and they could "access" them. So this wouldn't be for fully deleted images (unless they were still in the PC's trash can etc). But you can also "possess" a collection without knowing about its contents... it just needs to be in the person's custody and potentially accessible. pI would ask a solicitor for the specifics though or look on some solicitors websites who specialise in this stuff.
A big difference between possession and making, is that for possession you have to knowingly download the images. That's why it is has become much less common as a charge than making. For making you don't have to know the images have been downloaded, so its easier for the CPS to get a conviction.
Does that suggest that what he's told me isn't true then? If he's pled guilty to possession, he's knowingly accessed them?
Not necessarily. If it's still accessible on a device it counts as possession - could be something knowingly saved in a folder or automatically saved e.g. WhatsApp. If the police need to use forensic technology to recover the images, the charge would be making (as it's evidence that a copy was made, even if no longer in possession). If your friend is convicted of possession, either he didn't try and delete the images, or hadn't realised that they had saved to his disk. The police forensic report would provide more detail
The press reported it as images being stored in a part of the phone that was only accessible using specialist software. He said that's because they'd been deleted, rather than it being something he could access. But it was definitely a charge of possession.
Is the word "possession" from the press article too? Because they're not the sharpest knives in the drawer and they're often imprecise with the way they throw around legal terms. What you've described would be "making".
Yes, the report says he pled guilty to possession of indecent images of children. Sentencing is still to come and I understand we'll get more or a narrative then.
Can someone explain to me the value in prosecuting a person for possessing illegal material they did not intentionally download and didn't know they had, and how this safeguards children?
I totally understand and support the point you are making.
My person definitely knew they'd been sent because he was having horrendous and sickening conversations with the people who sent them. He claims he deleted the images without looking at them but even if that's true, I don't think I can get past the fact he was even having these chats to begin with.
I think fundamentally I can't accept this and also can't trust his explanation or his claim not to have looked at the images. As the weeks pass, I am finding it no easier to accept.
I still don't really understand why his charge is possession and what this does or doesn't mean about what he has actually done. I think I'm going to need to accept that I'll never know for sure.
My person definitely knew they'd been sent because he was having horrendous and sickening conversations with the people who sent them. He claims he deleted the images without looking at them but even if that's true, I don't think I can get past the fact he was even having these chats to begin with.
I think fundamentally I can't accept this and also can't trust his explanation or his claim not to have looked at the images. As the weeks pass, I am finding it no easier to accept.
I still don't really understand why his charge is possession and what this does or doesn't mean about what he has actually done. I think I'm going to need to accept that I'll never know for sure.