Bliss Roots Cbd Gummies™ Exclusive...
Food & Drink2 mins ago
Huw Edwards
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Clone. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Barry, Perhaps when they say 'making' they mean 'making'. Taking photographs would be 'making'."
"Yes, it does suggest that he was engaged in making the images i.e. photographing an actual child. Was he not?"
Barry is correct. The charge will almost certainly be under Section 1 (1) of the Protection of Children Act, 1978:
1 Indecent photographs of children.
(1)Subject to sections 1A and 1B, it is an offence for a person—
(a)to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
(b)to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs]; or
(c)to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or
(d)to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.
The principle case which usually persuades prosecutors to use this Act instead of “Possessing indecent images of children” under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (which carries a lesser sentence) is R v Bowden [2000]. It was ruled that ‘making’ indecent images is defined as follows “to cause to exist, to produce by action, to bring about” indecent images.
The court’s interpretation of ‘making’ indecent images is broad and the following can amount to making indecent images; opening an email attachment, downloading an indecent image, storing an image, and accessing a website where an indecent image “pops up”.
The offence carries a maximum sentence of ten years custody. S160 of the CJA carries a maximum of five years.
I've just learned what 'Category A' images means - I'm appalled.
And the BBC has been paying him whilst not on air? It's almost unspeakably awful that he was being treated as a respectable and influential newscaster.
Unsure if there is any other cause to the post other than alerting people as to what is/has been going on.
Scarcely need to ask for opinions, really.
“NJ, can you clarify the offences Huw would be charged with it he were responsible for the initial creating of the image, for example coerced a child in to posing whilst he took photos/video.”
It would be under the same legislation, ken. However, if you look at the Sentencing Guidelines:
You will see in “Step 1 – Determining the offence category” a table with three headings: “Possession”, “Distribution” and “Production”. Somebody involved in the actual production of the images would be sentenced under “production” (which provides for the most severe penalties, see Step 2).
The footnote to table 1 reads: “includes the taking or making of any image at source, for instance the original image. Making an image by simple downloading should be treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing."
Hope that helps.
"Forget the pedantry, he wants some time behind bars."
It is what you term the "pedantry" that determines how long he spends behind bars (or whether he spends any time behind bars at all).
