A man was jailed for two-and-a-half years after appearing at St Albans Crown Court. He pleaded guilty to 22 charges of selling counterfeit CDs and DVDs and possession of extreme pornography.

He was given two years for selling counterfeit CDs and DVDs and six months for each of the 16 animal porn charges, to run concurrently.

Police 'Celebrate'

The story was reported under the headline: Hatfield police celebrate first conviction for extreme porn under new laws

Sergeant Dey said: We are the first officers in the county to make use of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 – possession of extreme pornographic images – and it was only possible by the fantastic support from FACT and BPI.

We are thrilled with Smith's significant sentence which shows how this type of crime is viewed by the courts.

The investigation into him took nearly a year.

In matters of extreme porn, the message of recent cases seems to be that whether you get off increasingly depends on how familiar your legal team are with a law still in its courtroom infancy.

...Read the full article

A Dorset man has been sentenced after pleading guilty to 11 counts of possessing extreme pornography depicting pain being inflicted.

Bournemouth Crown Court heard how David Hill had been arrested after police searched his mother's home and another property in Christchurch.

Prosecutor Desmond Duffy said two computers had been seized and examined by experts who found three movies and 26 still images featuring scenes of violence: When interviewed in January this year Mr Hill admitted downloading the material because he was participating in bondage acts,  He accepted that what he had downloaded was extreme in nature, acknowledging participants were likely to be experiencing severe pain and risking injury as a result.

Duffy added that Hill had wanted to assess if he felt able to participate in that kind of activity himself.

Defending, Robert Gray said his client was a professional man of previous good character who had received treatment for his interest in this kind of material.

The court heard how Hill had been suspended from his job, on full pay, pending the outcome of legal proceedings.

Imposing a two-year community order and three-month curfew, Judge Samuel Wiggs told Hill: It is extremely sad that you should be in this court. You have substantial qualifications in the career which you follow. Hill was ordered to pay £1,350 prosecution costs.

And a reminder of the law

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images

...

(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

...

A man denied possessing pornography that depicted sex acts with a horse and a dog at Tower Bridge Magistrates' Court last week.

Frederick Shaw said the DVD was not in the hundreds of mainstream films in his personal library and voiced a desire to cross exam police officers at a Crown Court trial.

A stunning reversal for police and prosecution in North Wales. A case, scheduled to be heard in Mold Crown Court, was the culmination of a year-long nightmare for Andrew Hollan as the CPS declined to offer any evidence, and he left court a free man.

The saga began last summer when, following a tip-off, police raided Holland's home looking for indecent images of children. They found none, but they did find two clips, one involving a woman purportedly having sex with a tiger, and one which is believed to have depicted sado-masochistic activity between adults.

Despite Holland's protests that he had no interest in the material, and that it had been sent to him unsolicited as a joke, he was charged with possessing extreme porn. In a first court appearance in January of this year, the tiger porn charge was dropped when prosecuting counsel discovered the volume control and at the end of the action heard the tiger turn to camera and say: That beats doing adverts for a living.

The clip was therefore deemed to be unrealistic and out of scope as far as extreme porn legislation was concerned.

The court then turned its attention to the allegedly more serious clip involving adult interaction which, it has been suggested, featured some seriously unpleasant application of sharp objects to genitals.

Holland spoke to members of Consenting Adult Action Network and sexual rights organisation Backlash, and he ended up pleading not guilty. He was expected to call several expert witnesses who would have challenged the characterisation of the clip as pornographic, arguing instead that the content was intended to be a form of extremely bad taste joke and not sexual in nature.

The CPS, however, declined to offer any evidence, and the matter is at an end.

We spoke to Holland after the case and he declared himself very relieved. Due to the sexual nature of the case, he has been barred from contact with his daughter since the case began and he is now determined to re-establish contact. He told us: Now I can start to put my life back together.

The CPS has not yet commented on this matter, or on the fact that on each charge, it was not until the day of the court appearance that it decided the evidence to hand was inadequate.

...Read the full article

And a reminder of the law

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images

It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image which is both—

(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image. 

An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

...

Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—

(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Short jokey bad taste porn clips are clearly produced for the purpose of amusement or even disgust but they are simply not produced for sexual arousal.

DPP Keir Starmer should be ashamed of his persecution of an innocent man.

A man found with extreme porn and child porn after police raided his home and seized a CD disk and computers.

Phil Howes, prosecuting, said when the items were examined, police found 13 indecent images of children. Further extreme pornographic images were found.

John Wood pleaded guilty to two charges of possession of a total of 17 extreme pornographic images on June 22 last year. Wood also admitted a single charge of possession of 13 indecent images of children on the same date.

He was given a three-year community order with a condition to complete a sex offenders' programme. Wood was also placed on the sex offenders' register for five years.He was ordered to pay £500 prosecution costs.

Lawrence Bruce, defending, described the child porn images as at the lower end of the scale and said the extreme porn was the more exotic kind of sexual activity between adults.

Police officer prosecuted

Based on article from bbc.co.uk

An ex police community support officer who downloaded pictures of children being abused has been given a suspended jail term. James Allan, admitted 14 offences of making indecent images of children and one of possessing extreme pornography.

He was given a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years by a judge at Carlisle Crown Court. He was also given a two year supervision order, disqualified from working with children for life and put on the sex offenders register for 10 years.

Supt Andy Towler, of Cumbria Police, said: The result today sends a strong message to offenders that no matter who you are, or your standing within the community, you will be caught and brought to justice.

Trivial compared to serious charges but still brought

Based on article from cambridge-news.co.uk

Don Davies admitted offences of sexual activity with a child, taking indecent pictures of her, making indecent pictures, possessing indecent images of a child and offences of possessing extreme pornography. He was jailed for six years.

More charges added to more serious offence

See article from croydonguardian.co.uk

Matthew Thain collected internet pictures of children being abused by adults, as well as extreme animal pornography, but was spared jail after a judge deemed supervision and a sexual offences prevention order would be enough to protect other children.

The teenager was given a three-year supervision order, a youth offending programme, and a residency and sexual offences prevention order.

He admitted four counts of sexual assault on a child under 13, two counts of making indecent images and one of possessing extreme pornography.

And again

Based on article from malverngazette.co.uk

A Ministry of Defence worker's stash of child pornography and bestiality videos was uncovered when he dropped three memory sticks at a military centre where he worked.

Jeremy Spicer also stored some of the illegal images on his work computers. He was sentenced at Oxford Crown Court after earlier admitting 12 counts of making (ie copying) indecent photographs of children and three counts under the new extreme pornography law of possessing images portraying bestiality.

Spicer was jailed for 15 months suspended for two years and given a six month supervision order. He was also ordered to pay £2,000 costs, sign the sex offenders' register and be subject to a sexual offences prevention order for five years.

Update: And again

19th August 2010. Based on article from wisbechstandard.co.uk

Paul Reynolds faces a total of 19 charges involving child pornography - ranging from the lowest level up to the most graphic of images. The remaining charges involve extreme pornography relating to sexual activity with animals including a cow, donkey, chicken, horses and dogs.

Update: Top up charges

27th August 2010. See article from whtimes.co.uk

A man caught with child porn images when he took his computer into a repair shop has been jailed. Patrick Franklin also had a collection of extreme animal pornography which was discovered after he took his hard-drive into PC Pitstop in Hebburn in January.

Franklin pleaded guilty to nine charges of possessing indecent photographs of children, relating to 93 images and 20 movies. He admitted two charges of possessing extreme pornography relating to 61 movies and 19 images of adult bestiality.

Judge David Wood jailed him for 12 months, banned him from working with children and ordered him to sign the sex offenders register for 10 years. The judge told him: These are serious offences involving the abuse of young children who have to pose for these photographs, and also a number of very unpleasant images of adult bestiality.

A man who kept movies depicting extreme pornography has been jailed.

Darren Toone pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing at Liverpool Crown Court to two counts of possession of indecent images of children and possession of amphetamines.

He also pleaded guilty at an earlier date to 19 counts of possession of extreme pornography contrary to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

On Monday he was jailed for 16 months at Liverpool Crown Court.

Toone's computer was seized in February 2009 as part of a separate investigation by Greater Manchester Police's Major Incident Team. Police were called to the house, which Toone shared with his girlfriend, after she was found dead. An investigation was launched and officers concluded there were no suspicious circumstances, with the details passed to the coroner.

However, during the course of the investigation two of Toone's computers were seized. Examination by GMP's High-Tech Crime Unit revealed he had a large amount of commercial and homemade pornography. This included 19 movies showing violent rape scenes and bestiality and two movies containing indecent images of children.

Detective Constable Karen Appleton said: Owning and watching these sorts of films is not a victimless crime. People who pay to download these movies serve only to line the pockets of people who make them and create an industry that leads to the abuse of children and innocent people.

A man caught with a jokey bad taste video on his mobile was warned by a judge he could have faced jail. Police found the short video clip on Michael Nelson's mobile after he was arrested and taken to Gill Bridge police station in Sunderland.

The footage showed a man's genitals being mutilated and had been on his phone for several months, a court heard.

Perhaps this was just the well circulated video showing a woman's stiletto heel being ground into a guys dick. This clip is probably languishing forgotten in the inbox of thousands of people.

Persecutor Jeanette Smith told Sunderland Magistrates' Court that the 23-year-old blamed peer pressure, telling police the images were going about the streets, but he did not know who had sent them to him. He said at first he could not delete it, but accepted later he could have deleted it, but pressure from friends made him keep it on his phone, she added.

Nelson admitted to an offence of possessing extreme pornography at a court hearing in June.

Defence solicitor Geoff Pearson said Nelson, who has no previous convictions, did not forward the clip on to anyone and had no other hardcore pornography on his phone. Pearson said: This is an image that was sent to him on his phone by an individual. He did not invite it and he has not done anything with it in the sense he did not distribute it. It just sat on his phone for a long time.

He added: The images are pretty awful, I have to accept that and he accepts that. I can't imagine why you would want to watch this, unless you were the particular type of person that found some gratification in it.

He is, or he was, a young man of impeccable character and this is not the kind of matter he was seeking or gets any gratification from. If only he had pressed the delete button, but it may have been peer pressure that caused him not to do so and got him into this trouble.

District Judge Roger Elsey ordered Nelson to complete 200 hours of unpaid work.

He said: There is no doubt that this was a revolting and perverted piece of video and there is no reasonable explanation for this being on your mobile for the time it was. If you had any previous convictions or you had distributed this piece of video, you would be going to prison.

Nelson was also ordered to pay £85 towards court costs.

The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill received Royal Assent on 6 August 2010.

The Act amends the Obscene Material section of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

1. It increases the penalty associated with Obscene Material to 5 years imprisonment.
2. It adds clauses to ban the possession of 'extreme pornography'. This mostly based upon the version of the law applying to the rest of the UK but widens the definition of extreme pornography

The Act adds the following clauses:

Section 51A Extreme pornography

(1) A person who is in possession of an extreme pornographic image is guilty of an offence under this section.

(2) An extreme pornographic image is an image which is all of the following—

(a) obscene,
(b) pornographic,
(c) extreme.

(3) An image is pornographic if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be  assumed to have been made solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

(4) Where (as found in the person's possession) an image forms part of a series of images, the question of whether the image is pornographic is to be determined by reference to—

(a) the image itself, and
(b) where the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image, its context within the series of images, and reference may also be had to any sounds accompanying the image or the series of images.

(6) An image is extreme if it depicts, in an explicit and realistic way any of the following—

(a) an act which takes or threatens a person's life
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in a person's severe injury,
(c) rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity,
(d) sexual activity involving (directly or indirectly) a human corpse,
(e) an act which involves sexual activity between a person and an animal (or the carcase of an animal).

(7) In determining whether (as found in the person's possession) an image depicts an act mentioned in subsection (6), reference may be had to—

(a) how the image is or was described (whether the description is part of the image itself or otherwise),
(b) any sounds accompanying the image,
(c) where the image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images—

(i) any sounds accompanying the series of images,
(ii) the context provided by that narrative.

(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both,
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years or to a fine or to both.

(9) In this section, an image is—

(a) a moving or still image (made by any means), or
(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into such an image.

51B Extreme pornography: excluded images

(1) An offence is not committed under section 51A if the image is an excluded image.

(2) An excluded image is an image which is all or part of a classified work.

(3) An image is not an excluded image where—

(a) it has been extracted from a classified work, and
(b) it must be reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) from the work solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

51C Extreme pornography: defences

(1) Where a person (A) is charged with an offence under section 51A, it is a defence for A to prove one or more of—

(a) that A had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned
(b) that A had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an extreme pornographic image,
(c) that A—

(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of A, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.

(3) Where A is charged with an offence under section 51A, it is a defence for A to prove that—

A directly participated in the act depicted, and—

(a) in the case of an image which depicts an act described in subsection (6)(a) of that section, if the act depicted did not actually take or threaten a person's life
(b) in the case of an image which depicts an act described in subsection (6)(b) of that section, if the act depicted did not actually result in (nor was it actually likely to result in) a person's severe injury,
(c) in the case of an image which depicts an act described in subsection (6)(c) of that section, if the act depicted did not actually involve nonconsensual activity
(d) in the case of an image which depicts an act described in subsection (6)(d) of that section, if what is depicted as a human corpse was not in fact a corpse,
(e) in the case of an image which depicts an act described in subsection (6)(e) of that section, if what is depicted as an animal (or the carcase of an animal) was not in fact an animal (or a carcase).

(5) The defence under subsection (3) is not available if A shows, gives or offers for sale the image to any person who was not also a direct participant in the act depicted.