The law penalising possession of extreme pornography faces judicial review by a defendant previously charged with having a video of woman having sex with a tiger.
It was revealed in Court that the tiger was actually a man
in a tiger-skin costume.
Yet the former defendant, Andrew Holland, of Wrexham, North Wales, suffered significant disruption to his life and widespread public ridicule.
Solicitor Myles Jackman at Hodge Jones
& Allen LLP acting on behalf of Mr Holland, said:
Mr Holland does not want others to go through the ordeal that he has faced. Mr Holland wants to ensure that others are not prosecuted unnecessarily in the manner
that he was. He remains subject to the risk of further criminal charges in the event that he is in possession of similar joke images in the future.
Consequently Backlash have written to the Prime Minister, and HJA
have written to Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions asking her to review the implementation of this law: Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Something has gone badly wrong when
Parliament were told there would be thirty cases a year yet there have been thousands of costly prosecutions emphasised Backlash Chair Hazel Eraclaeous.
If this review is not forthcoming, the law will be challenged by way of
judicial review in the Administrative Court of the High Court.
Jon Fuller, spokesperson for Backlash, said:
This law threatens anyone with a sex life they want to keep private. It threatens
ordinary members of the public who exchange dirty jokes by phone and over the internet. Potentially criminalizing millions of people is a disproportionate consequence of a law not based on harm and with no clear benefit.
Letter to the Prime Minister from Backlash
Dear Prime Minister
S63(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Prospective Judicial Review in the Administrative Court of the High Court: Pre-Action Protocol Letter
In the years since
S63(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was enacted there have been over 5,500 prosecutions for possession offences. Prior to the introduction of the legislation Ministers said there would merely be a handful of cases each year, and the
Regulatory Impact Assessment predicted just 30 per annum.
Of great concern is that over the five years since enactment of the legislation the public, law enforcement agencies and the judiciary remain either oblivious or uncertain
as to the precise meaning of at least two, and possibly all four, categories of the legislation. The Simon Walsh trial showed that CPS had sought to widen the meaning of Section 63(7)(b), seeking to prosecute for possession of images that depicted
unconventional but not dangerous behaviour. The Andrew Holland ( Tiger porn ) case (Section 63(7)(d)) showed that harmless but crude jokes could also result in prosecution.
While both of these cases and others resulted in
acquittal, it is unacceptable that the legal profession remains uncertain as to what types of material may get members of the public into trouble. There is emphatic evidence that many lawyers have advised people to plead guilty to possession offences to
avoid the cost involved in trial, despite subsequent examination of the facts revealing that no offence had been committed.
The brutal reality is that lives are being turned upside down, careers destroyed and worse. In the light
of the extreme nature of the penalties upon conviction, inclusion on the sex offenders register, lengthy period of incarceration and a heavy fine, it is wholly unacceptable that the public is denied an unequivocal, precise and detailed statement of that
which is legal and that illegal to possess. If it really is impossible for the executive to provide clarity, then legislators must repeal the sections that cause the greatest difficulty (S63(7)(a) and(b).
Today, Hodge Jones &
Allen LLP, acting on behalf of Andrew Holland, has written to The Director of Public Prosecutions explaining that the case against Mr Holland breached his human rights for three reasons.
1. That the term extreme pornography
is insufficiently clearly defined in S63 CJIA 2008. It is not clear from the wording and accompanying case law how a potential defendant would be able to understand its scope and foresee the consequence of his/her actions;
2.
There is insufficient guidance from the DPP as to when offences under S63 will be prosecuted; and
3. The offence is a disproportionate means of achieving the legislation's intended aims.
Hodge Jones &
Allen LLP have asked that the Secretary of State for the Home Department carries out a Human Rights Impact Assessment in relation to S63 CJIA 2008. In the event that the section fails the Human Rights Impact Assessment it is requested that this be
confirmed in writing so that proceedings can be issued by way of judicial review by the Claimant who can then seek a Declaration of Incompatibility by way of a Consent Order. This will allow the Secretary of State for the Home Department to repeal
Section 63 of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 by use of the fast-track procedure under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
I appeal to you to intervene to ensure that common sense and justice prevail. The harm
being caused by S63(7) CJIA 2008 now greatly exceeds any perceived benefits.
Yours faithfully
Hazel Eracleous Chair, Backlash
Are
vague laws allowing police to ride roughshod over legal standards?
See article from
politics.co.uk by Jane Fae
The extreme porn law has been the government's preferred means of dealing with online smut for ten years. It was always an
accident waiting to happen. For five years, government appears to have gotten away with it, but today's threat, by solicitors Hodge Allen & Jones to take the law to judicial review if the director of public prosecutions does not explain once and for
all what is and is not an offence could be the final straw.
...Read the full article
