Trials and outcomes
Notifications OFF
Are there any statistics on how many IIOC trials come out as guilty vs not guilty?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6l4mgp0q1o
Just reading about this case. I have to say, if I was on this jury, I would find it difficult to believe him. Yet the jury seems to have found him not guilty on pretty circumstantial evidence that's purely based on his statement of innocence. Surely, if it's that fair many more of these cases would be going to trial.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6l4mgp0q1o
Just reading about this case. I have to say, if I was on this jury, I would find it difficult to believe him. Yet the jury seems to have found him not guilty on pretty circumstantial evidence that's purely based on his statement of innocence. Surely, if it's that fair many more of these cases would be going to trial.
The legal threshold is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This means you have to be absolutely certain the person is guilty. There was clearly doubt here, probably due to so many years having passed, and the possibility of many different people accessing the laptop, and the images being dated to a very long time ago. They will have taken his more recent devices to search and presumably found nothing.
This is different eg to a family court, where the threshold for guilty is 'on the balance of probability' - social services for example would use this to inform their decisions.
This would show on his enhanced DBS despite the not guilty
This is different eg to a family court, where the threshold for guilty is 'on the balance of probability' - social services for example would use this to inform their decisions.
This would show on his enhanced DBS despite the not guilty
Ah thanks for the clarification! I just hear people saying their legal experts claiming that juries are always biased in these cases so guilty is always the safest option. This case seems to suggest otherwise.
This feels like a really unique case to me due to the length of time that has passed, I can imagine a lot of technicalities of evidence not included in the press report went into the jury making that decision. I think nowadays most people have non shared devices, multiple password layers etc that would make it easier to pin it on one individual.
In 2008 most people didn't have a smart phone and computers were often shared, especially between family members etc
In 2008 most people didn't have a smart phone and computers were often shared, especially between family members etc
My laptop still had a password back then! But yeah I imagine the pics have a lot less data associated with them that allows prosecution to pin down specifics.
From an article on the HE case.
https://www.bsblaw.co.uk/blog/huw-edwards-bsq-briefing
"The Guilty Mind Requirement
To prove the offence of making indecent images, as well as showing that a user had accessed illegal images the prosecution must show that the offender had the necessary "mens rea" or "guilty mind." This requires evidence that the images were deliberately and knowingly sought by the device user. This can be established through evidence of manual interaction with the illegal imagery, such as receiving and viewing the images repeatedly over time.
In Mr. Edwards' case, it's unclear from media reports how this requirement was met. However, if there was evidence of a pattern of behaviour indicating he viewed and/or sought out illegal material, the "guilty mind" requirement would be satisfied."
Perhaps the laptop in 2008 was sufficiently primitive that it was difficult to show some of those things that indicate "mens rea". But from what I read on this forum, a lot of our people who pleaded guilty could probably argue similar as long as they didn't have obvious search terms related to IIOC and weren't on apps like Kik. In HE's case, it's clear that him continuing the chat with that young man and responding to the pictures he sent constituted a guilty mind. I just wonder how many people who have genuinely done it by accident have been pressured into pleading guilty. And how many of those who did it intentionally but had money were able to take it to trial and possibly get acquitted.
https://www.bsblaw.co.uk/blog/huw-edwards-bsq-briefing
"The Guilty Mind Requirement
To prove the offence of making indecent images, as well as showing that a user had accessed illegal images the prosecution must show that the offender had the necessary "mens rea" or "guilty mind." This requires evidence that the images were deliberately and knowingly sought by the device user. This can be established through evidence of manual interaction with the illegal imagery, such as receiving and viewing the images repeatedly over time.
In Mr. Edwards' case, it's unclear from media reports how this requirement was met. However, if there was evidence of a pattern of behaviour indicating he viewed and/or sought out illegal material, the "guilty mind" requirement would be satisfied."
Perhaps the laptop in 2008 was sufficiently primitive that it was difficult to show some of those things that indicate "mens rea". But from what I read on this forum, a lot of our people who pleaded guilty could probably argue similar as long as they didn't have obvious search terms related to IIOC and weren't on apps like Kik. In HE's case, it's clear that him continuing the chat with that young man and responding to the pictures he sent constituted a guilty mind. I just wonder how many people who have genuinely done it by accident have been pressured into pleading guilty. And how many of those who did it intentionally but had money were able to take it to trial and possibly get acquitted.