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 representative charges out of each category with a comprehensive charge for the balance. The defence should be given adequate time and facilities to check the classifications. It should be clear whether it was alleged that any image was a true or a pseudo image. In this case, and allowing for the mitigation available, the sentence was too long.
Judges:
Lord Justice Thomas
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Crim 669, Times 16-Apr-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1988 160(1) 160(2A)
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194991
