INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN

A sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of two years was appropriate in the case of an adult male who had pleaded guilty to attempting to foster an inappropriate relationship with an 11-year-old girl over internet.

An extended sentence was reduced on appeal to less than 30 months even though the offender had already served the sentence. The judge had imposed the lengthy extension period in order for the defendant to attend a sex offender treatment programme, but had not intended the consequence that the defendant would remain on the sex offender’s register for life.

Where a defendant had taken indecent photographs of a 17-year-old girl following intercourse on a “one night stand”, the judge had been correct to reject an argument that the situation came within the terms of the defence set out in the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1A.

Evidence which was sought to be admitted under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(d) as evidence of propensity was not inadmissible simply because the behaviour it evidenced post-dated the offences being tried.

Arrangements to provide defence lawyers with the relevant material for the sole purpose of discharging their professional responsibilities to their client, and the acceptance by them of access to such material for that purpose, could not, in any circumstances, be regarded as criminal. Where, in the course of proceedings concerning the making and possession of indecent photographs of a child, the trial judge had ordered the prosecution to make copies of the images for his use, with the defence to be shown an identical copy, and the prosecution had given notice that it would not comply with that order, the proceedings had rightly been stayed as an abuse of process.

A sexual offences prevention order was quashed where its terms were impermissibly wide. Since breach of such an order was a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, it was essential that the order was clear on its face, capable of being complied with without unreasonable difficulty and/or the assistance of a third party, and free of the real risk of unintentional breach.

A notional determinate sentence that equated to 30 years’ imprisonment before a one-third reduction for guilty pleas, which had formed the basis for calculating the specified minimum term of a life sentence imposed for 28 counts relating to the sexual abuse of five boys, was excessive and reduced to 20 years.

An offence of possessing an indecent photograph of a child contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.160 was not a “sexual offence” within the meaning of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.85(1)(a) and an extended sentence of imprisonment could not, therefore, be imposed in respect of it.

A sentence of imprisonment for public protection imposed following a plea of guilty to sexual offences was upheld where, having regard to the facts of the case and the offender’s previous convictions, the judge had been justified in concluding that he posed a significant risk of causing serious personal injury. However, the specified minimum term of two years was modified to take into account time the offender had already spent in custody.