No Further Action Indecent Images Charge Police Station 2024

Our client was arrested for distributing and possessing indecent pseudo-photographs of children in contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. It was alleged that the client downloaded prohibited images from Google and the client was arrested at his home address. The client’s home was searched and his electronics were seized. A total of six prohibited images were found to have been downloaded onto a device. The images were of a cartoon nature and depicted manga-style images of what appeared to be children engaged in sexual activity.

The offence of ’distributing’ an indecent image is defined in section 1(2) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 as parting with possession of the image to another person, or exposing or offering the image for acquisition by another person. Possession of such an image means that one must knowingly have such an image under one’s control and have access to it.

Our client had been represented by another firm of solicitors at his first interview.   They had been advising that our client was guilty and should accept a poiice caution if it was offered or plead guilty at court if charged.  Either of these outcomes would have very serious consequences for our client.

Following a meeting with our expert lawyer, our client provided detailed answers in a police interview which showed that he had a defence to the allegations, even though images had been found on his device. That defence was that he did not know that the images were on his device.  It seems that his previous solicitors were unaware of the existence of this defence and did not advise or take instructions on it. There was no evidence of distribution.

Subsequently, the police decided not to charge and no further action was taken against our client.

Our client was arrested for distributing and possessing indecent pseudo-photographs of children in contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. It was alleged that the client downloaded  prohibited images from Google and the client was arrested at his home address. The client’s home was searched and his electronics were seized. A total of six prohibited images were found to have been downloaded onto a device. The images were of a cartoon nature and depicted manga style images of what appeared to be children engaged in sexual activity.

The offence of ’distributing’ an indecent image is defined in section 1(2) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 as parting with possession of the image to another person, or exposing or offering the image for acquisition by another person. Possession of such an image means that one must knowingly have such an image under one’s control and have  access to it..

Our client had been represented by another firm of solicitors at his first interview.   They had been advising that our client was guilty and should accept a poiice caution if it was offered or plead guilty at court if charged.  Either of these outcomes would have severe consequences for our client.

Following a meeting with our expert lawyer our client provided  detailed answers in police interview which showed that he had a defence to the allegations, even though images had been found on his device.   That defence was that he did not know that the images were on his device.  It seems that his previous solicitors were  unaware of the existence of this defence and did not advise or take instructions on it. There was no evidence of distribution.

Subsequently, the police decided not to charge and no further action was taken against our client.