Many people are not aware that in law it is possible to be guilty of the offence of possession of indecent images even if the images have not been specifically downloaded onto their computer. However it does not necessarily follow that by simply looking at indecent images you will be guilty of this offence. It all turns on the facts and it will often help to instruct a leading forensic computer analyst to examine the computer. There are a number of tried and tested experts that we have worked with over the years who will be able to assist in the preparation of your defence
Penalties for Possession of Internet Child Pornography (IIOC, Indecent Images Of Children and Extreme Pornographic images) are particularly severe and prison is a real prospect. If you have been charged with downloading or uploading child pornography on the Internet, you need a specialist internet crime lawyer who understands the nuances of these cases.
There are other punishments that attend this peculiar crime: the accused tends to be of good character, often with a strong supportive family, and there is underestimating the shame brought about by the first police raid, let alone the newspaper reporting at the end. We will do all we can to keep the matter out of the press. We can advise on and process a change of name when appropriate. When the case is all finished there will be mandatory registration on the Sexual Offenders Register. We will also advise on this.
R v IP: In 2020 a suspect sought advice as there were aggravating features to his IIoC and he naturally feared prison. In the event his good nature was proved to the court and despite contact with a minor, seen in context the Judge was able to suspend the prison sentence.
R v DL: 2021 assisted suspect who devices had been seized and he had warned of likelihood of illegal material being found. Changed his name in time for charging process so it was under the new name and it spared the shame of his extended family and friends making the connection.
R v BP: Following a conviction for IIoC with another firm, this client approached us in 2022 as the police were alleging breach of his Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO). In fact we could show at interview that the destruction of an old phone and the transfer of its contents to a new phone cannot be a breach as at no times are two phones simultaneously being “used”.
R v Smith: the client was found to be in possession of a large quantity of child pornography. Michael made representations to the police and the police agreed to give the client a simple caution for this matter.
- R v B: the client received a non-custodial sentence despite being in possession of a large number of category one and two images (less serious) and a small number of category 3, 4 and 5 level images (most serious images).
- R v PR: the Judge’s sentence was a conditional discharge as at crown court we were able to prove vast majority of images did not even fall into the indecent category let alone the most serious types as police alleged.
“With enough category A images to pass the incarceration threshold, Michael advised that it was a case of demonstrating a determination to reform my offending behaviour to allow the judge to feel confident enough to suspend any jail term. Michael outlined what needed to be done to best demonstrate to the court that I was legitimately full of remorse for my actions and had already taken steps to start the long process of rehabilitation which the court could augment as it saw fit. With Michaels help, I left the court by the preferred exit, and will be making recompense to society, from outside prison, as well as receiving much needed professional help to reform my ways.”