CPS extreme image advice is online (40)

Their advice includes

"Although the Act does not state what a serious injury is, prosecutors must be aware that by the very nature of its name serious injury will not include trivial or transient injuries which include bruises and grazes."

"Taking an example which was raised during parliamentary debates on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, the anal sex scene in the movie Last Tango in Paris, even if it were to be considered pornographic and of an obscene nature, would not be caught by the new offence, because it is not explicit and does not portray an act resulting or likely to result in serious injury to a persons anus."

"The painting Leda and the Swan, another example raised during debates in Parliament, would also not be caught by the new offence, because it would not meet the explicit and realistic test."

"The police may ask you to consent on behalf of the DPP over the telephone. Prosecutors should not do this."

[Is that last para CPS humour perhaps ? ]

Of interest more to Admin, "In cases where there is evidence that the suspect has published or distributed extreme pornographic images, prosecutors should charge the suspect with an offence contrary to the Obscene Publications Act, rather than the new offence of possession of extreme pornographic images."

(1) Reading between the lines, I get the distinct impression the CPS believe this law is gonna be a pain in the bum. But they believe certain sections of the police might (mis)use the Dangerous Pictures Act rather zealously.

(2) It gives examples of what is legal - and it'd be pretty surprising if a mainstream film was deemed illegal to possess - but it doesn't define what is illegal.

"The new offence only relates to material which by virtue of the Obscene Publications Act; is illegal to publish or distribute in the United Kingdom."

It's nice to see it explicitly stated.

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

This has been a concern since the law was passed. Whilst the wording of the CJIA is nowhere near the same as that in the OPA, the government consistently stated that the CJIA's intention was to cover OPA stuff where the distributor/publisher was overseas or could not be identified.

With any new law, the initial cases which create the foundation of the case law need to consider parliament's intentions as recorded by Hansard. It seems the CPS is pre-empting such cases by recognising that quasi OPA-equivalence was discussed at length during debates on the CJIA.

Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit

Thanks for this link Backlash!

De

Sign up to CAAN's statement www.caan.org.uk "Those who seek to find pleasure from other people's pain and exploitation will find themselves prosecuted and punished." Scottish [in]Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/224482/ SCOTLAND's PORN BAN - DO SOMETHING, NOW!

Firstly, it's good to hear explicitly that those involved in IT have the same defence as for child porn - i.e. if you come across it as part of your job, and do the right things, you're covered.

However, I'm worried about the burden of proof being on the defendent if you claim that a) you didn't see it, or b) it was sent to you unsolicited and c) you deleted it once you'd seen it.

These things are incredibly hard, if not impossible, to "prove".

Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit

The above says to me that images of needles in those three areas would be breaking the law. Normally I wouldn't say that they were to cause 'serious injury'. However, the fact 'sharp objects' have been mentioned by the CPS, leads me to think that THEY would class needles as likely to cause serious injury.

x

Yesterday's neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary.
This post may be, or has been, edited for typos.

Edited 8 Feb 09, 2:22 PM by mia

I was thinking give a picture to a jury of needle play and I bet 80% of them would say omg thats extream and it would cause serious injury just on instinct.

So "serious" won't include trivial or transient, but it offers no reassurance beyond that! (Remember that more than transient and trifling is the threshold for S&M acts being illegal, so all they've said here is that "serious" won't include the minority of trivial S&M acts that are considered legal.)

Does "insertion of sharp objects" include needles? Does "mutilation" include any cuts to the skin? Does "anus" include the buttocks?

One slightly reassuring thing about whether those offered a caution would be required to go on the "Sex Offender" Register:

So nice that they have a whole section for "Consent to Prosecute" - since when did this Government have a clue about what "consent" meant...?

Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details.

Edited 8 Feb 09, 2:36 PM by emark

I wonder what is mutilation. Does it say aything about branding the breasts for example? I'm not sure that would be serious injury whereas deep cuts with a knife to the breasts presumably would.