(deleted) (60)

Normally, arguing that images stored in a temporary cache don't count as possession wouldn't get you anywhere, because downloading would constitute "making" and probably possession, but that wouldn't apply if downloaded before the law.

On a related note - do we know of any lawyers who are specialising in this area? (As in, for someone to contact if they are unlucky enough to be caught by the law.)

Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.

I am not saying there was definitely a defence here. I am just saying that we can't be sure that there wasn't.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken

I don't see why they wouldn't. Judgements on possession involving drugs have been applied to child porn - I would expect that would be the starting point of any judgement.

The ruling I was referring to was Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions [2002], which confirms for computer media that the defendant only had to know that they once possessed images.

I recall some judgement about online storage, but I can't find it now so I might have remembered wrong. Still, I would have thought it fairly obviously met the 'custody or control' aspect of possession.

- Chris

This is my voice, my weapon of choice

[Thanks for Keithunder on seenoevil for the link.]

As with the Colin Blanchard case ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/81... ), it's another "indefensible" case of someone also possessing child porn, as would be expected.

No details on the nature of "extreme" images, only that they are confirmed as "involving adults".

He has entered no plea.

Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.

I am not sure whether the the aim of these trials is to build up as comprehensive a trial history to give good conviction rates for a new law.

The fact he has entered no plea is standard procedure when a Magistrates court case is being moved up to a higher court as it enables the defence to build a better defence [you have, I believe six weeks]. Until the new court hearing it is I believe treated as 'not guilty'.

SOS

I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers. - Mahatma Gandhi
www.Londonmunch.co.uk
Londonmunch@hotmail.com - Enquiries

I found it interesting that he was charged with four *specimen* charges of possession of indecent images of children and also with possession of extreme porn. In other words, rather than charge him for every picture that he had, he was charged for four representative ones (which is fairly standard) but then he was charged with the less serious offence of possessing extreme porn as well.

Now, if for some reason they needed to add a fifth charge, it could easily have been another child porn charge, so I can only think of two reasons why he was charged with extreme porn:

1) So that the law gets used, and attached to cases involving paedophiles in the minds of the general public.

2) So that the images could be destroyed.

The second possibility is the more wholesome of the two, but it's also a little pointless considering how many countries don't ban extreme porn, and that we aren't blocking websites with it on.

Edited 25 Jun 09, 1:54 PM by Fourfiveone

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Filenames are personal data.