Regina v Oliver etc: CACD 21 Nov 2002

The defendants appealed their sentences for possession and distribution of indecent images of children. The court gave detailed sentencing guidelines for the offences. Distinctions were made for the gradations of pornography, from erotic posing only, to depictions of sexual activity between children, to non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, to penetrative activity, and lastly acts of sadism or bestiality. Surrounding activities distinguished between degree of connection with the original abuse, the numbers of images involved, and presence of distribution. Sentences might range from a conditional discharge for the least offences to sentences of imprisonment. Such images may be used to corrupt the young, and therefore pseudo-photographs must be treated as having an equally corrupting effect.


Rose LJ, Gibbs, Davis JJ


Times 06-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 2766, [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 15



Cited by:

CitedThompson v Regina CACD 26-Mar-2004
The defendant had been convicted of offences of possessing a large number of indecent images of children.
Held: In such cases, the prosecution should frame the charges following the classification in R v Oliver, with a small number of . .
CitedTerrell, Regina v CACD 21-Dec-2007
The defendant appealed his sentence for making indecent images of children. Additional sentences had been imposed for public protection. He had a previous conviction for a similar offence.
Held: The additional sentence should not have been . .
CitedWiles, Regina v CACD 4-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed against the imposition of an extended sentence under the 2000 Act for conviction involving sexual assault on a child and the possession of indecent photographs of children. The pre-sentence report spoke of his lack of insight . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178356