Extreme Pornography News

A taxi driver who ended up with a criminal conviction after his mate sent a bad taste animal porn film clip to his mobile phone has won his fight against the 100-hour unpaid work order.

Brian Sharples did nothing to solicit the illegal movie and tried to delete it from his phone, but his lack of technological know-how let him down, a London hearing was told. Having thought he was rid of the illegal bestiality image, he went on to download music to his PC from his phone, along with the extreme porn film.

The image was discovered by police in May last year and he was arrested and his computer seized. He pleaded guilty to possession of an extreme pornographic image at Liverpool Crown Court in August.

This week Lord Justice Davis, Mr Justice Keith and Judge Brian Barker QC, sitting at London's Criminal Appeal Court, quashed that sentence and gave him a conditional discharge for six months.

The court heard that the sentencing judge had accepted that he had not solicited the image, but had been sceptical about his explanation that he had thought it was erased, despite his accepted basis of plea.

Mr Justice Keith said: We don't think there was any real basis for the judge to have doubted his answer that he thought he had deleted the film.

What a nasty state of 'justice' when the the Director of Public Persecutions, Kier Starmer approves the devastating prosecution of a man just for a bad taste video clip sent no doubt as a joke. Shameful!

Possession of an extreme pornographic image has led to a fine for a Cornwall man.

Tony Cummings appeared before Bodmin magistrates on October 16 to admit the offence, committed on January 17.

He was fined £ 515 and an order was made that all the material seized should be forfeited and destroyed under the terms of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

The Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) have been researching the extent of Dangerous Picture prosecutions in Scotland.

The Scottish variant of the law against extreme porn was enacted in March 2011 and the period under analysis in this report is August 2011 to August 2012.

Via a Freedom of Information request found that 41 cases of Dangerous Pictures had been investigated. 27 cases are still in progress, and the outcome of the 14 case resolved so far is:

• 8 cases dropped
• 1 not convicted
• 5 convicted.

It is not yet clear as to the pattern behind the prosecutions. South of the border, nearly all prosecutions are linked to investigations for other offences (most frequently linked to various forms of child abuse). Extreme porn prosecutions are then either used to top up the original charges or else used for vindictive prosecutions should the main charges fall through as in the notable case of Simon Walsh.

The Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) has revealed details of the the number of people the CPS has charged (and reaching first hearing) under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act extreme porn provisions and the number of convictions (according to the Ministry of Justice).

Charged (and reaching first hearing)	2008/9	2009/10			2010/11			2011/12
S63(7)(a): life threatening images	0	5			38			40
S63(7)(b): serious injury to breasts, anus or genitals	0	52			132			102
S63(7)(c): necrophilia	0	0			0			6
S63(7)(d): bestiality	2	213			995			1171
Convictions			2010				2011
S63(7)(a): life threatening images				0		3
S63(7)(b): serious injury to breasts, anus or genitals				9		11
S63(7)(c): necrophilia				0		0
S63(7)(d): bestiality				48		67

The vast majority of the police actions have been as a result of computer/phone searches for people investigated for unrelated reasons, most notably child porn. Most of these cases have been mostly uncontested as the main charges are more serious and take precedence. The dangerous pictures charges being used just to top up the main charge.

In some cases the main charge has fallen through but the authorities have continued the dangerous Pictures charges. These cases have shown that the authorities have been persecuting innocent people for jokey bad taste phone clips and exaggerated claims about the 'serious' injury, such as the Simon Walsh persecution over a handful of anal fisting images.

In fact there hasn't yet been a report of a case along the lines of what the law was originally intended to deal with, ie somebody like Graham Coutts, convicted of murder and found to have a large collection of violent porn.

We may have a coalition Government, but as it goes about fixing the economy the CPS are prosecuting individuals based on authoritarian legislation passed by the Labour Government. The most recent of which was Simon Walsh, an Independent Councillor in the City of London, Mayoral appointee to the London Fire Authority and a Barrister had a life-changing 18 months waiting for his trial for possession of pornography. There are many aspects of this case that are so wrong, not least the length of time it has taken and the damage that inflicts on an individual mentally, reputationally and financially. Here Simon shares his very personal experience at the hands of Labour's laws.

...Read the full article

If you do not know about the case brought by CPS against Simon Walsh you need to read about his trial for possession of extreme pornography.

Very many people who know about the case and have commented upon it suggest that there were political or other reasons for his prosecution, but the facts are that he was prosecuted for possession of material similar to that which resulted in the acquittal of Michael Peacock in January of this year, that the likely to cause serious injury provision of CJIA 2008 S63(7b) was unlikely to succeed and yet, despite Simon's acquittal his life plans have been utterly destroyed.

This case proves all too painfully that one does not have to be guilty or found guilty to be ruined and that anyone whose private life could be linked to porn (by personal design or otherwise), is a potential target and has good reason to be afraid.

...Read the CAAN Newsletter [pdf]

Last week, a jury at Kingston Crown Court took 90 minutes to acquit Walsh on all counts. In a potentially landmark case, they found that the image of the underage boy in fact showed an adult in his mid-twenties, and that the five other images could not be called extreme or pornographic, nor were likely to cause injury. Many people may think these practices distasteful but the pictures Walsh possessed of them were not unlawful.

Today he describes himself as roadkill --- a victim of the process by which the CPS is perhaps discovering the limits of the 2008 legislation. His career, he says, has been stopped in its tracks by that initial police suspicion, with its catastrophic implications of paedophilia, and by the splashing of his sex life across the press. He also claims that the CPS was out to get a conviction by whatever means they could .

The damage is irreparable. What I had, the status I had, has been ruined... The CPS refuses to accept that certain slightly unusual, but consensual, safe and pleasurable practices should be permitted, he claims. That's got to stop ... It's not even sado-masochism. That's not the way I do it. It's just a group of guys having fun.

...Read the full article

[Re] Simon Walsh's acquittal at the Kingston Crown Court for allegedly being in possession of extreme pornography under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.

The five images in question depicted anal fisting and urethral sounding, both activities featured in the Peacock Trial. At the time I expressed the view that the CPS, along with the Metropolitan Police and the BBFC needed to review the guidelines.

I can report that, post Michael Peacock's #ObscenityTrial and pre Simon Walsh's #PornTrial the CPS did indeed meet with representatives from the Met and BBFC. However, I am told that the Peacock Trial was considered to be a singular prosecution and therefore the result of the review process was not to amend the guidelines in any way, shape or form. Therefore more defendants may have to put their lives on hold like Michael and Simon did whilst challenging such intrusive prosecutions.

It is my contention that the matter is now beyond the remit of the CPS, Met and BBFC and that the subject requires the scrutiny of the Home Secretary, Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission and that questions should be asked in the House.

...Read the full article

I guess the BBFC were just told to continue to cut material considered extreme or obscene by the CPS and police. Hopefully they had no part in the decision to continue to persecute people for images or legal and consensual sex.

The Crown Prosecution Service under the current director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, is earning a deservedly bad reputation for its vexatious litigation. Her Majesty's chief inspector estimates that almost one in 10 of its prosecutions is baseless Thousands of people plead guilty, nevertheless, just to get the CPS off their backs.

...Read the full article

Newsnight carried a brief overview, an interview with London's Chief Crown Prosecutor, Alison Saunders, and an interview with the acquitted defendant Simon Walsh.

I want to discuss is Alison Saunders' attempt to defend her decision made on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service.

When asked by Eddie Mair why the CPS had brought the case, Saunders replied:

We brought the case because there was sufficient evidence and when we looked at the case we found that there was evidence to prosecute the offence of possessing extreme pornography. What we looked at there was whether or not there was a pornographic image and the element of the act we prosecuted under was whether or not the image showed there was likely to be harm or injury caused.

I'm going to start here with her description of the test being applied - likely to be harm or injury caused . This idea of harm and injury or harm and serious injury is repeated multiple times by Alison Saunders throughout the piece. I think it is important to note here what the law actually calls for:

an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals

Note, serious injury , not harm or serious injury . It has got to be likely to cause serious injury . All this talk of harm (which is a much wider term) is misleading. Serious Injury is the nature of the offence nothing less. Let's not have the Chief Crown Prosecutor trying to widen an already too wide law and using slopping thinking to justify cases.

...Read the full article

Extract: Whilst on the subject of supposed 'harm'

11th August 2012. See  article from  janefae.wordpress.com with thanks to David

The inevitable extension of power

Let's start with what looks like a very ominous development indeed: the summing up by the trial judge in which he apparently explained to the jury that serious injury could involve physical, mental or moral harm .. This is par for the course. Over the years we have seen how the courts have extended legislation on child abuse material so that making an image, which the public, I suspect, naively consider to involve some sort of recording equipment and the presence of real live children now covers downbloading . (Cause the image gets made on your hard drive, innit?).

Not that I have enormous issues with this particular extension: just that I think if the law was meant to be that, parliament should have said so. Then there's the slide in respect of dvd's and other material from legislating against stuff that causes harm to stuff that causes potential harm or is likely to cause harm .

And this year we have the interesting extension of the law on Obscene Publications to bring one-to-one conversations and online chat within its remit. Again: I can see WHY the authorities might wish this to be the case...but if they do, why not be honest and legislate it?

So. The fly in the ointment of this week's case is the clear revelation that many in the judiciary have already internalised the falsehood that extreme porn legislation is a bit like Obscenity law and meant to deal with mental and moral harm despite the very clear denials by ministers and politicians just four short years ago that this law was intended to deal with depiction pure and simple.

...Read the full article

Barrister Simon Walsh and former Boris Johnson aide has been acquitted of possessing extreme pornography in a landmark case over the boundaries of what can be described as extreme .

The jury was unanimous and took less than 90 minutes to clear Walsh after a week-long trial.

The case is believed to be the first to address whether images of anal fisting, a sexual practice which is legal, and urethral sounding are extreme pornography, as defined under the disgraceful law, section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

After searching Walsh's home and office computers, the investigators found nothing incriminating. All they could come up with six email attachment images, on a Hotmail server account he set up to receive and send sexual messages.

Surely this lack of substantial evidence, coupled with the desperately thin set of email attachments must have sounded a few warning bells about persecution. Anyone owning a computer must know that there are bound to be a few undesirable images hanging round somewhere, especially in email folders. It must have gone through the minds of jurors that should the police ever take an interest in their computers, then this could easily happen to them or their families.

Walsh was sacked from his position on the London Fire Authority on his arrest in April last year. He was a man of impeccable character who had made an outstanding contribution to society, the court heard, and had previously chaired the City of London Corporation police authority and licensing authority.

Walsh faced five charges under the 2008 act, which stipulates images are extreme if they are grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character and if they portray, in an explicit and realistic way any act which results in, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals .

The prosecution claimed three images, found in attachments in Walsh's sent box, showed urethreal sounding, where a medical instrument is inserted into the tip of the penis to stretch the urethra and stimulate the prostate, acts that were likely to cause injury to a person's genitals. Two images showed anal fisting, which was likely to cause injury to a person's anus, it claimed.

The defence argued there was no evidence of any serious injury in any of those images, and that the activities were low risk. Walsh had taken the urethral sounding images himself at a New Year's Eve party and sent them only to other participants at the party, the court heard.

Medical evidence was examined showing that there were risks in these activities, but these risks were not generally 'likely' to occur.

A sixth charge, of possessing an indecent image of an underage boy, related to an attachment sent to Walsh which showed a sexually aroused male with a ligature. Walsh told the court he had no recollection of ever opening the attachment on the email, which was unsolicited and unanswered. The defence claimed the image was not of a child but an adult. It was also not possible to prove Walsh had opened the attachment, the court heard.

Three defence experts viewed the image and stated in written reports that Jason was in his twenties. As a matter of legal procedure, the jury never heard this expert evidence. Instead they used their common sense and acquitted Walsh.

Prosecutor Thomas Wilkins told the court Walsh was a gay man who has what he described as a strange sex life . Wilkins said: He doesn't dispute that he uses the email account purely for his sex life. He doesn't dispute that he is interested in bondage and sadomasochism. There was no dispute that Walsh had sent three of the images, but, added Wilkins, he disputes that they are extreme or pornographic .

Trial Report: The acquittal of Simon Walsh at Kingston Crown Court

See  article from  heresycorner.blogspot.com

Trial Report: Prosecutors, extreme porn and 50 Shades of Grey

See  article from  politics.co.uk by Alex Dymock

Comment: Extreme porn trial: consensual sex and the state

See  article from  guardian.co.uk by Defence Lawyer Myles Jackman

Unlike the Obscene Publication Act, which covers distribution, the CJIA shifts the burden on to individuals in possession of pornography. People need to know how to modify their behaviour in accordance with the law, yet it is unclear what acts constitute extreme pornography .

As well as criminalising acts which are legal to perform, the CJIA would seemingly outlaw images which have been exhibited in art galleries. In 2008, the Barbican Gallery's Seduced exhibition included photographic images of male on male anal fisting and male urethral insertion from artist Robert Mapplethorpe's X Portfolio. The gallery cleared them with the City of London police before the exhibition opened.

Police also regularly misclassify images they discover. In the Stafford extreme pornography trial, my client was initially charged with being in possession of over 1,250 extreme images. Upon viewing them, it became clear that over 900 were of clothed performers not engaging in any form of sexual activity. That defendant was eventually acquitted by a jury of all charges.

So, would you even know what material might be illegal? Have you been sent junk emails and not opened them? How much do you know about operating systems caching images attached to unopened emails?

Comment: Why the porn trial verdict is no reason to celebrate

See  article from  blog.indexoncensorship.org by Jane Fae

Red faces over at the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police, as a jury took under three hours to clear former aide to London Mayor Boris Johnson , Simon Walsh of a string of charges brought under extreme porn laws. Indeed, were Twitter an accurate reflection of the nation's views on a topic, Keir Starmer, Head of the CPS and all those involved in the prosecution would this afternoon be looking for new jobs: such has been the mix of disbelief and outrage that public money and police time should be wasted on footling state attempts to interfere in the private lives of consenting adults.

...

The effect of this [extreme porn] law is pernicious. It doesn't seem to have done much to stem the tide of porn that so many politicians obsess about. It has given police and prosecution another stick with which to beat the unwary --- and to punish them should they not be punishable for any other crime.

...

For all that this result has been embarrassing to the CPS, they continue to make progress on what is beginning to feel like a serious moral agenda at the heart of their practice.  Calls for review of prosecuting practice have followed swiftly.  Ian Dunt, of politics.co.uk, thinks it is time to look again at the culture within the CPS. Ben Goldacre wonders aloud whether it is mere coincidence that a lawyer who has made a career of bringing corrupt police officers to book should be the target of such legal manoeuvring, also suggesting we need an inquiry into why CPS and police keep bring these [cases].

Comment: The shameful and nasty prosecution of Simon Walsh

See  article from  newstatesman.com by David Allen Green

It was a sensible jury decision, and one well-deserved by Walsh and his fine legal team.

But this is a matter which should never have got before a jury, for this was a shameful and nasty prosecution of a good man.

The law is bad to begin with. The offence in its entirety is dealt with over four sections of the relevant statute, and is perhaps the most complex as well as one of the most illiberal prohibitions in criminal law. However, the effect of the law is stark: possession of certain extreme pornographic images of adults is a serious crime even if the acts portrayed are consensual or staged.

Comment: Reflections and future legal directions after #porntrial

10th August 2012. See  article from  lawandsexuality.blogspot.com

Shit-play or sexual play incorporating excrement also characterised the fisting images and whilst the focus has been on injury, I always felt that the issue that might affect a jury more was that of disgust - a term utilised in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and part of the tests a jury must satisfy. Representing - quite literally - the dirty , the unclean , this was for me the issue that a jury might find the most difficult to comprehend, and the most likely to cause discomfort.

Oh ye of little faith. The jury demonstrated - in a unanimous verdict - that they did not find such an image grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character (within the meaning of S63(6)(b)) and so whilst the focus has been on fisting, I think the acceptance of scat images is just as - if not more - significant.

Today the Crown Prosecution Service will attempt to persuade a jury that images of anal fisting should be classified as extreme pornography with the risk to the defendant of three years in custody, inclusion on the sex offenders' register and damage to his personal and professional standing. All for a type of image which is commonly viewed, of an activity which is itself is legal to perform and is even discussed in the book Fifty Shades of Grey.

Nonetheless the defendant, Simon Walsh, has been charged with being in possession of extreme pornographic images under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: so the Prosecution must prove that the act of fisting is likely to result in serious injury to a person's anus .

The Defendant, Simon Walsh, who is represented by my firm (Hodge Jones & Allen) has given his express permission for this information to be published.

Before being arrested and charged with these offences, Simon was a successful professional and politician in the City who, amongst other things, prosecuted police officers accused of disciplinary offences. After being charged, Simon lost both professional and political positions, despite the fact that no pornography was found on any of his work computers. In fact, no pornography was found on Simon's home computers either.

Instead, the police had to interrogate Simon's personal email account (server) in order to discover a few images they deemed questionable. This included an image of a man wearing a gas mask. Their expert stated that this was likely to cause serious harm, even death by asphyxiation: despite being a piece of equipment designed to assist breathing. This charge was eventually dropped.

Unfortunately, by performing the interrogation of Simon's email account in the fashion they did, the police contaminated the only source of evidence; making it impossible to identify whether images attached to emails had in fact been opened and viewed.

...Read the full article

Follow trial on Twitter using #porntrial

Offsite: A good write-up of the court case so far. Updated after Thursday's session

3rd August 2012. See  article from  heresydungeon.blogspot.co.uk

Update: Not Guilty

8th August 2012.

Simon Walsh has been found Not Guilty on all 6 counts. The jury was quick to return a unanimous verdict on each charge.

Congratulations to Simon Walsh and his excellent defence team. Thanks to the court reporters on Twitter. Shame on the CPS for bringing this vindictive prosecution to court.

A Police Community Support Officer has avoided a jail term after falling victim to the Dangerous Pictures Act.

Alan Rosser, who worked with the Lincolnshire Police Neighbourhood Policing Team in Caistor, was arrested in December 2010 after his home was searched.

Laura Pitman, persecuting, told Lincoln Crown Court that Rosser's computer was taken away and subsequent checks revealed almost 5,000 extreme pornographic pictures and videos:

That computer was examined and images of extreme pornography, involving adults and animals was discovered. He was subsequently interviewed and admitted he knew these images were on his computer.

Rosser admitted six charges of possessing extreme pornography on December 14, 2010. He was given a three-year community order with a three-month curfew. He was also ordered to attend a sex offenders' rehabilitation course and his computer was confiscated.

Stephen Grattage, defending, said:

He was a PCSO for several years and was well regarded. He did a good job and always tried to keep himself within the law. He didn't realise that this was a criminal offence. He was very upset that he had crossed that line. It was an error on his part.

And as if to emphasise that Rosser's tastes would have best been left a private matter, rather than adding another broken career to Britain's social security debt mountain:

The judge told Rosser: It is clear that you were highly thought of.

And the newspaper report added that Rosser, described as popular and hardworking, had been a PCSO since 2003 but quit his job after being charged and is now unemployed claiming Job Seekers' Allowance.

The excellent campaigners of Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) have just published their newsletter for July 2012.

This newsletter focuses on issues of extreme porn:

• How is the legislation panning out?
• Has their been any progress on firming up the meanings of the vague terms in the law?
• How is the law impinging on BDSM?
• How can the law be challenged?
• How is it related to the continuing enforcement of UK obscenity law?
• How is the Scottish variant of the law being implemented?