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 imposed. He had not gone beyond the downloading of images. ‘The link between the offending act of downloading these indecent images and the possible harm which might be done to children is too remote to satisfy the requirement that it be this Appellant’s re-offending which causes the serious harm. At worst there would be an indirect and small contribution to a harm which might or might not occur, depending on whether further photographs were taken in part as a result of the Appellant’s contribution to the market, or depending on whether a child found out about the uses to which they were put as a result. The imprisonment for public protection provisions of the CJA do not apply in the circumstances here, where simply as a matter of generalisation, a small, uncertain and indirect contribution to harm may be made by a repeat of this offender’s offending. No significant risk of serious harm of the requisite gravity, occasioned by a repetition of the offending in this case by this offender can reasonably be said to exist.’
Judges:
Ouseley J
Citations:
Times 14-Jan-2008, [2007] EWCA Crim 3079
Links:
Statutes:
Protection of Children Act 1978 1, Criminal Justice Act 2003 28
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Beaney CACD 2004
. .
Cited – Regina v Howe CACD 2006
The defendant had downloaded from the internet 380 indecent images of children, the vast majority of which were at Level 1 but there were also 32 at Level 3 and 53 at Level 4.
Held: The appeal failed. There could be a sufficiently direct . .
Cited – Rampley, Regina v CACD 27-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Richards, Regina v CACD 27-Oct-2006
The defendant appealed the imposition of a sexual offences prevention order under section 66, saying that it did not comply with sections 224 to 227 of the CJA 2003. If the judge had thought there was a serious risk of harm and extended sentence . .
Cited – Lang and Others, Regina v CACD 3-Nov-2005
In each case the defendant had commited violent or sexual offences and were caught by the new mandatory sentencing provisions, and been made subject to life imprisonment, or detention for public protection, or an extended sentence.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.262971