Indecent Images Defence Solicitors

Berkeley Square Solicitors are recognised for their experience in defending allegations involving the possession, making and distribution of indecent images of children.

We regularly represent professionals, businesspeople and other individuals facing allegations of this kind, often at a very early stage of an investigation. Some clients contact us before any arrest has taken place because they are concerned that the police may be investigating them. Others come to us after computers, phones or other digital devices have been seized and sent for forensic examination.

Indecent images investigations can arise in many different ways. Police enquiries may follow information supplied by internet or cloud-storage providers, reports from third parties, activity identified on online platforms or material discovered during an unrelated investigation.

Once an investigation begins, the police the police may obtain a warrant to search a home or workplace and seize digital devices for forensic analysis. This can involve examination of computers, mobile phones, external drives, cloud accounts, messaging applications and other forms of digital storage. Once their work is done a report will be prepared. If evidence is found of illegal material, the user of the PC/phone/laptop may be questioned. The police will typically seek information about material that may have been downloaded or shared on applications such as bit torrent peer to peer networks, Chatstep or Kickmessage.

These cases often turn on highly technical evidence. It may be necessary to establish how material came to be stored on a device, whether it was deliberately downloaded or viewed, whether files were automatically created by software, whether material had been deleted, and whether the police analysis accurately identifies the number and category of images concerned.

For that reason, early specialist advice can be important.

We regularly instruct independent digital forensic experts to review the prosecution evidence and, where appropriate, challenge the conclusions reached by police analysts. We can also advise on pre-charge representations, police interviews, the protection of professional reputation and the steps that may be taken while a forensic investigation is still ongoing.

BSQ partner Roger Sahota has called for a change in the law concerning indecent images prosecutions and heads our private client department in this area. Read the full text of Roger's article here where he cites a report by the NSPCC suggesting the number of individuals looking at such images could exceed half a million and constituted a "social emergency".

“Against this background we believe efforts to divert those offenders who do not pose a risk of contact offending away from the criminal justice system to treatment within the community deserves urgent attention. Most immediately, amending the sentencing guidelines for the offence of possession or downloading of illegal child porn should also be considered. If rehabilitation is the primary objective, criminalising men who do view this type of material but pose no appreciable risk of contact offending is not the answer.”

If you are under investigation for an indecent images offence, contact us for confidential advice on 0203 858 0851.

The main offences are contained in the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The Protection of Children Act 1978 makes it an offence, among other things, to take or make indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children, to distribute or show them, or to possess them with a view to distribution or showing.

Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 creates the separate offence of possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child.

The word “making” has a wider legal meaning than its ordinary meaning. It can include downloading an existing image onto a device, even though the person concerned did not create the original photograph.

For an offence involving indecent images of children, the prosecution must establish that the material falls within the relevant statutory definition and is indecent.

For sentencing purposes, images are divided into Categories A, B and C according to the seriousness of the material depicted.

The categorisation of images can be important because it may affect the seriousness of the allegation and the sentence imposed. In appropriate cases, the police categorisation should be independently reviewed, particularly where the age of the person depicted, the number of images or the category assigned is disputed.

Digital forensic evidence is often central to an indecent images investigation.

We regularly instruct independent digital forensic experts to examine the evidence relied upon by the police and prosecution. This may include reviewing how files came to be stored on a device, whether material was deliberately downloaded or viewed, whether images were automatically created by software, whether deleted material can properly be attributed to the user, and whether the number and categorisation of images are accurate.

Independent analysis can sometimes reveal errors, duplication or important technical evidence which has not been properly considered by the prosecution.

We also advise at an early stage of investigations and can make pre-charge representations where the evidence justifies doing so.

The available defence will depend on the particular offence charged and the facts of the case.

For the possession offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, statutory defences include circumstances where a person had a legitimate reason for possessing the material, did not know and had no cause to suspect that the photograph was indecent, or received it without having requested it and did not keep it for an unreasonable period.

Digital evidence can also raise important factual issues. Material may, for example, have been automatically downloaded or cached, received through messaging applications, stored by another user of a device, or downloaded without the defendant appreciating its content.

For that reason, the presence of an image on a computer, phone or other device does not necessarily determine the outcome of a case. The circumstances in which the material was obtained, viewed, stored and retained may all require careful forensic examination..

Client A, an IT consultant of good character, was charged with downloading a very small number of indecent images.

A huge cache of several terabytes of otherwise legal material downloaded from P2P sites was found on his desktop. His first set of lawyers had listed his case for a Crown Court trial.

Following a BSQ review and representations in writing by BSQ partner Roger Sahota, the CPS dropped all charges. The CPS accepted our argument that the images found on his PC were accidentally downloaded whilst the user was searching for “legal” pornographic material.

Client B, a high profile business man, whilst suffering a personal crisis was alleged to have accessed and downloaded indecent images sent to him via the Kik messenger application.

Having dismissed his first set of lawyers, he sought advice from BSQ for a second opinion and defence review.

Pre-charge, we instructed forensics experts and made representations to the Prosecution.

The CPS eventually decided to drop all charges.

Client C, an academic, was reported to police by his ISP provider for accessing illegal material. Police then raided his home and seized his desktop PC. This was later analysed and found to contain evidence of the downloading of thousands of indecent images. C was later charged. Having dismissed his original lawyers, C instructed BSQ who conducted an independent forensic examination of his computer equipment. We succeeded in persuading the CPS to substantially reduce the number of charges. Due to double counting and other failings the number of images found had been greatly exaggerated by a magnitude of several thousand. C was sentenced in the Crown Court and represented by Roger Sahota. He avoided custody and received a suspended sentence