The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of indecent pseudo-photographs of children. He said that he had not seen the image, and that though he had reason to know the images were indecent, he had no reason to know that they were of children.
Held: The defence in section 160(2)(b) succeeded if the defendant had not seen the pseudo-photograph and did not have reason to think it represented a child.
Hoopper, LJ, Keith, Andrew Patience QC JJ
England and Wales
Distinguished – Regina v Land CACD 10-Oct-1997
No expert medical evidence is needed with regard to the age of a child said to be the subject of an indecent photograph. Whether it is a child is not outside normal experience. The defendant had seen the photographs, and no defence was available . .
Cited – Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions; Goodland v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Mar-2000
For possession of an indecent image of a child to be proved, it was necessary to establish some knowledge of its existence. Images stored without the defendant’s knowledge by browser software in a hidden cache, of which he was also unaware, were not . .
Cited – Regina v Stamford 1972
The test of whether an article is indecent is an objective one. Words such as ‘insulting’, ‘serious’ or ‘obscene’, involve value judgments of which jurors are the arbiters par excellence without expert evidence. . .
Cited – Regina v Smethurst CACD 13-Apr-2001
As regards the offence of making indecent photographs of children, any intention of the defendant was irrelevant as to whether the photographs themselves were indecent. The defendant said he had obtained the images without any indecent intent, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.198718