PCD Solicitors are pleased to have successfully represented a client accused of online sexual offences, including the dismissal of unsubstantiated charges for the alleged possession of indecent images of children (IIOC). Through challenging the viability of the prosecution and the standard of evidence presented by police, the firm negotiated a plea bargain that shielded the client from a long trial and possible conviction as a sex offender.
Background:
Client K instructed PCD shortly after being charged with two criminal counts:
- Count 1: Possession of a single Category A indecent image of a child, contrary to s.160(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and;
- Count 2: Possession of eight extreme pornographic images, contrary to s.63(1) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
During the initial stages of the investigation, the client had been advised by a duty lawyer,
who had recommended a ‘no-comment’ interview and had not made effective representations through a thorough pre-charge engagement. Although no-comment interviews can sometimes be advised in specific circumstances, they can generally impede an effective defence by not putting a challenge to the alleged offence on record, and therefore allowing a judge or jury to make adverse inferences during a trial.
Possession of indecent images of children is one of the most serious non-contact offences in criminal law. The possession of the most extreme, Category A images carries a maximum custodial sentence of 10 years, as well as the application of restrictive Sexual Harm Prevention Orders (SHPOs) and appearance on the Sex Offenders’ Register. If convicted, Client K was facing up to a two-year prison sentence, and the imposition of an SHPO that would have made it impossible for him to live an ordinary life.
Our Approach:
PCD Solicitors have successfully represented clients in hundreds of indecent images cases. When instructed to represent after charges have been made, our immediate priority is achieving a full and comprehensive understanding of why this decision was taken, and work with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prevent unviable or unsubstantiated allegations from going to court. At the same time, we will work alongside an experienced barrister to assist us in constructing an effective defence that provides our client with the very best advocacy if the prosecution proceeds to trial.
Recognising the serious nature of the indecent image charge, our solicitors undertook a methodical review of evidence held by the police and proactively exposed weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. Through the compilation of a detailed legal application, we argued that:
- The Category A image had not been accessed by the client;
- There were no relevant search items related to the image on his devices;
- There was no pattern of offending or evidence of any other IIOC images, and;
- At the time the alleged image was saved, Client K was occupied at his place of
These conclusions were made from a detailed review of the available prosecution’s evidence, and arguments established by existing judicial precedents, including CPS v LR [2010] and R v Okoro [2018].
Through the submission of the application, our solicitors argued that there was insufficient evidence for a jury to conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that Client K had deliberately and knowingly possessed the indecent image, and that there was no supporting evidence that is consistent with a genuine offender of this type of crime, such as a pattern of online activity that indicates a sexual interest in children.
In addition to challenging the charge itself, PCD also submitted a detailed Defence Case Statement that questioned the integrity of the police investigation and the strength of the initial evidence presented by the prosecution. This included:
- Challenging the grading and analysis of the image, and the decision by the police to
classify it as ‘Category A’;
- Disputing the reliability of the Crown’s digital forensics and therefore the quality of their findings, arguing that their examination had been insufficiently documented and certified;
- Emphasising that Client K had not viewed the image, and therefore its classification as an IIOC was not accepted and expert analysis would be required, and;
- Raising serious procedural issues, including the lack of consent by the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute the case, as required by s. 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The Defence Case Statement argued that both the police and the CPS had failed to ensure that their evidence was properly gathered, certified and presented, which would render their case on this charge unviable in court. Alongside the legal application to dismiss, it established that the charge was both unfounded and procedurally unsound, and that continued action by the CPS would lead to a long and costly trial with no realistic prospect of conviction.
The Result:
Through consultation with Client K, PCD advised on the implication of a guilty-plea for the extreme pornographic image charge. By deciding to do so, the client accepted that he did possess extreme images proscribed under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, but that these had been shared with friends in an immature and ill-judged exchange that was intended humorously, and with no nefarious or sexual motivation. At no stage did he accept possession of indecent images of children, nor that he had a sexual interest in any of the material exchanged.
In consideration of PCD’s robust challenge to the viability of the IIOC charge, the Crown agreed to discontinue these charges on the basis that Client K pled guilty to the extreme image charge. This resulted in a £1,000 fine and a victims surcharge of £100, but prevented the client from being handed a custodial sentence or being subject to an SHPO. As a result, he can continue working without the burden and limitations of a restrictive court order, or the stigma as a registered sex offender.
On the result, Marcus Johnstone, solicitor and managing director, said:
‘We are delighted to have secured a discontinuance in charges for Client K, and to have
prevented a wrongful conviction on a very serious but unviable and unevidenced count.
Indecent images allegations are always complex, and the authorities need to collect and present evidence with the utmost integrity and transparency.
In cases like these, we have the opportunity to spare the court and the taxpayer from long and costly trials that are based on weak and flawed evidence, and stop an innocent man from being convicted on the wrong charges.’
PCD Solicitors are a nationwide criminal defence firm, specialising in defending and appealing false allegations of sexual crimes. If you or someone you know are being investigated for online offences, including possession of indecent images or extreme pornography, you can contact our team here.