Dangerous Pictures Act extended to include the pornographic depiction of rape
See Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
See Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
The extension of the Dangerous Pictures Act to include the pornographic depiction of rape or non consensual penetration has come into force.
The Criminal Injustice and Courts Act 2015 amends the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to add the depiction of rape to the list of content already banned.
The relevant section defining the new category of porn that is illegal to posses is:
37 Possession of pornographic images of rape and assault by penetration
(1) Part 5 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 63 (possession of extreme pornographic images)—
(a) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) In relation to possession of an image in England and Wales, an “extreme image” is an image which—
(a) falls within subsection (7) or (7A), and
(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.”,
(c) after subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, either of the following—
(a) an act which involves the non-consensual penetration of a person’s vagina, anus or mouth by another with the other person’s penis, or
(b) an act which involves the non-consensual sexual penetration of a person’s vagina or anus by another with a part of the other person’s body or anything else,
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.
(7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A)—
(a) penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal;
(b) “vagina” includes vulva.”
Also people who share sexual images without consent can be jailed for up to two years under the new law that came into effect in the UK on 13th April 2015. The Crown Prosecution Service said:
The law covers images that show the genitals but also anything that a reasonable person would consider to be sexual, so this could be a picture of someone who is engaged in sexual behaviour or posing in a sexually provocative way.
It is an offence for a person to disclose a private sexual photograph or film if the disclosure is made (a) without the consent of an individual who appears in the photograph or film, and (b) with the intention of causing that individual distress.
Another disgraceful CPS persecution of an innocent man who watched 'twink' porn. The victim was saved when the defence was able to follow up the 2257 proof of age records mandated for US websites
Thanks to Therumbler
See Man wrongly charged in Crown Prosecution Service's ‘homophobic
A man whose life was ruined when he was charged with child sex offences after looking at legal gay pornography in a hotel room has accused the police and Crown Prosecution Service of a homophobic witch-hunt after his case was finally thrown out.
The defendant endured a two-year nightmare after being arrested in front of his family, charged with 10 offences almost a year later and repeatedly bailed, before every charge was dropped.
The CPS, which spent tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money pursuing the case, offered no evidence in court -- in effect conceding there was no case to answer. His lawyers say they gave the CPS conclusive documentary evidence three months ago
that all models featured in the pornography were of legal age.
The defendant's nightmare began during a business trip in September 2011 when he viewed images on a website specialising in twink pornography. Twink is a well-known term in gay slang for small or young-looking men who are aged 18 or over. Perhaps
a male equivalent to 'barely legal'
When a female guest who stayed in the same room the following week saw the computer's browsing history she complained to the hotel and staff called the police. Six months later, in March 2012, the man was arrested at his father's home.
Speaking after the trial closed the man said:
I can only conclude that the police officers and the CPS showed institutional homophobia throughout this case. I doubt I would have been treated the same way if heterosexual pornography was involved. Police... were obviously clueless about pornography --
as were the CPS.
In January this year the CPS charged the man with nine counts of making indecent images and one count of possessing indecent images.
He was represented by Myles Jackman, the leading obscenity lawyer who has won several victories in so-called porn trial cases. Mr Jackman obtained signed USC 2257 documents, required by adult websites to prove models they use are not underage, and
photographs of all the men involved in the website holding up their passports, which clearly show their dates of birth.
Mr Jackman told The Independent: The CPS has at best showed an ignorance of gay culture and at worst showed itself to be institutionally homophobic. USC 2257 is extremely stringent US federal legislation which the defendant said the police were
completely unaware of.
Mr Jackman said he had complained to Keir Starmer, the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, about the CPS's conduct in what he called the Twink Trial but is yet to receive a reply.
Comment: The CPS clearly didn't bother trying to investigate whether the pictures were actually underage
See The evidence is mounting. Is the CPS institutionally
by Myles Jackman
Throughout these aborted proceedings, we repeatedly stated that all the performers in question were over the age of 18. Despite this, the prosecution has always maintained that it was a matter for a jury to decide the age of the performers. However, we
were able to prove how old the performers were. In spite of this the police and prosecution consistently failed to make further inquiries regarding the source and context of the images.
In June, our IT expert Paul Vella contacted the website directly. It confirmed it complied with USC Title 2257 legislation, which requires adult websites to keep records verifying a performer's age against their passport details, as well as keeping
signed model release forms .
It supplied us with all these details for all the performers on the entire website. We presented these details to the prosecution immediately. It was possible to compare the passport photos of the performers in question with their pictures on the
Unfortunately, the prosecution in this case refused meaningfully to engage with the evidence we supplied. As a final resort, we complained to Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC's office. We failed to receive the reply we were promised.
CPS introduce a note of caution before embarking on Dangerous Pictures prosecutions involving exaggerated risks of injury to breasts, anus or genitals
13th May 2013. Thanks to Sergio
See Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Guidelines
The Crown Prosecution Service has updated its guidelines for Extreme Pornography under the Dangerous Pictures Act.
This seems to be a response to the disgraceful, and thankfully failed, persecution of Simon Walsh over a few images of gay anal fisting.
One of the several types of images supposedly considered as extreme is now described as follows:
An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breast or genitals; this could include the insertion of sharp objects (although in some circumstances this can be done in a way that is not likely to result in serious
injury) or the mutilation of breasts or genitals. It is likely to be difficult to prove that cases of fisting involve images that show activity that is likely to result in serious injury so these cases need to be handled with particular care.
Serious injury is not defined in the Act and should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, being a question of fact for the District Judge or jury.
So it seems that fisting is no longer normally considered extreme.
The CPS also seem to be advising plenty of caution about prosecutions that may follow similar lines to that of Simon Walsh.
Having regard to the Article 8 right to a private life, and the requirement for any interference with that right to be proportionate and necessary, the threshold for prosecuting section 63(7)(b) cases should be a high one. It should be clear It will
generally not be in the public interest to prosecute serious injury cases unless there is some aggravating factor present.
When assessing whether there are aggravating factors present when considering the public interest in prosecuting, consideration should be given to:
The extent of the circulation of the images, for example whether they were shared between consenting parties or posted more widely, for example on social networking sites.
Whether there is clear and credible evidence of the exploitation of those depicted in the images.
The number of images involved - it is less likely to be in the public interest if there is a very small number of images involved.
Any previous behaviour or conduct that may amount to relevant bad character evidence.
In view of the balancing act that section 63(7) (b) cases involve, decisions (either to prosecute or not to prosecute) specifically relating to serious injury should be approved at Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor (DCCP) level.
When considering such cases, the following should be considered:
There has to be a likelihood of serious injury - this is more than just a risk .
The type and severity of the injury likely to be inflicted should be obvious on looking at the image and expert evidence on the subject should not ordinarily be necessary.
In exceptional cases where expert evidence is required, caution should be exercised when there are contrasting views from reliable experts, although the views of defence experts need to be considered in context.
If other offences (including those under section 63(7) (a), (c) and (d)) have been committed and can be proved, it is preferable to focus on these rather than any section 63(7) (b) offence.
Update: Police Censors
14th May 2013. Thanks to Sergio
Sergio emailed the BBFC to inquire whether BBFC censorship policy will change in response to CPS comments effectively stating that fisting is not now considered to be 'extreme'.
The BBFC replied that the censorship of fisting will continue on CPS orders:
The guidance you have quoted from relates to the offence of possession of extreme pornography under the terms of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
However, the BBFC does not cut images of this particular practice on those grounds. We cut such images from sex works, and did so long before the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act was introduced, on the basis of potential obscenity.
Current advice from the relevant enforcement agencies suggests that sex works containing images of this practice remain likely to be considered obscene under the terms of the Obscene Publications Act. '
Scottish extreme porn 'sex offenders' will have to continue notifications when living elsewhere in the UK
13th July 2011. See parliamentary transcription
Draft Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2011
House of Commons
Third Delegated Legislation Committee
12th July 2011
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell): I beg to move,
I suggest that the draft order, which was laid before the House on 22 June, be approved. I propose to provide the Committee with an explanation of what the draft order seeks to achieve. It is made under section 104 of the Scotland
Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient changes to UK legislation in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. It is made in consequence of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.
The 2010 Act also ensures that a person will be made subject to the sex offender notification requirements when they are convicted of the offence of possession of extreme pornography. The draft order will extend that provision as a
matter of law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, thus ensuring that a person made subject to the notification requirements as a result of conviction for possession of extreme pornography in Scotland cannot evade the requirement to register by moving
elsewhere in the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
The order will commence on 1st August 2011.
23rd July 2011. Thanks to Harvey
The succinctly titled "Draft Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2011" is really just a tidy-up.
The requirement to notify (commonly called The Sex Offenders Register) is a provision of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That Act applies the whole of the UK. The SOA 2003 contains a schedule (3) which lists the specific offences which trigger the
requirement to notify. The Scots are simply asking the UK Parliament to change the schedule to their 2003 Act so that the Scottish offence will be included and thus the notification requirements will be triggered and apply, UK wide, for a person
convicted of that offence.
The SOA was similarly modified to include the DPA offence in Schedule 3. The DPA offence applied only to England, Wales and NI, but since it was made in the UK Parliament and the SOA applies to the whole of the UK, it was all accomplished with the text
of the DPA, rather than requiring a separate tidying-up order so that a person convicted of the English offence would be required to notify even if they moved to Scotland.
Since the amendment simply includes a new Scottish offence to the schedule, it would not appear to change anything in the present law as it affects persons convicted of offences in England, Wales and N. Ireland.
Update: Passed in Lords Committee
12th September 2011. Based on article
The amendment has now been passed in Lords Committee with the comment:
The 2010 Act also ensures that a person will be made subject to the sex offender notification requirements when they are convicted of the offence of possession of extreme pornography. The order extends that as a matter of law in
England and Wales and Northern Ireland. That ensures that a person made subject to the notification requirements as a result of a conviction for possession of extreme pornography in Scotland cannot evade the requirement to register by moving elsewhere in
the United Kingdom.
Key Points of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010
See Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 [pdf]
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)
It increases the penalty associated with Obscene Material to 5 years imprisonment.
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—
(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.
Key points of the law against possession of prohibited of images of children
See also Cartoon Law goes live: Time to burn your Japanese comics
by John Ozimek
A new law has come into force on 6th April 2010 banning sexual cartoons and drawings featuring children.
Part 2 Chapter 2 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
prohibits the possession of non-photographic pornographic images of children. See also explanatory notes
Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Part 2 Chapter 2
Section 62 Possession of prohibited images of children
[Key points extracted by the Melon Farmers, See Part 2 Chapter 2 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
for the full text]
(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child.
(2) A prohibited image is an image which—
(a) is pornographic, ie 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.
(b) falls within subsection (6), and
(c) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
Note that photographic and near photographic images are not covered by this law as they are already prohibited by other more serious laws.
(6) An image falls within this subsection if it—
(a) is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or
(b) portrays any of the acts:
(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;
(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;
(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);
(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.
An image which forms the whole or part of a classified work is excluded from the prohibition. [Albeit with exceptions where images are separated from justifying context]
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;
(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child;
(c) that the person—
(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
65 Meaning of image and child
(2) Image includes—
(a) a moving or still image, or
(b) data which is capable of conversion into an image.
(5) Child means a person under the age of 18.
An image of a child is where:
(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
(b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
(a) on summary conviction [at a magistrate's court], imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months in England and Wales and 6 months Northern Ireland or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment [at a crown court], imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine, or both.
Full version of the law against possession of prohibited of images of children
Not Suitable for Public Articulation...
Akon banned from Sri Lanka over Buddha statue appearing in music video
Thanks to Søren
Lanka has refused to issue a visa to R&B star Akon, who was due to
perform there next month, saying he offended the country's Buddhists.
The ban comes after protests over one of the star's music videos
featuring scantily-clad women dancing in front of a statue of Buddha.
In a statement, the government said the video for Sexy Bitch
by David Guetta, featuring Akon on vocals, triggered a lot of
disappointment among Buddhists. It added some of Akon's lyrics were
not suitable for public articulation.
On Monday, hundreds of people protested the head offices of the
Maharaja Broadcasting and Television Network, the media sponsor of the
Two Facebook groups protesting against the concert have surfaced:
The We Hate Akon (Abuse Music Video Against Lord Buddha) group has
more than 8,000 followers while another, Akon Who Disgraced Buddhism
— STOP Sri Lanka Concert, has 800 adherents.
Considering the controversial video images, offensive song lyrics
and strong protests coming from various cultural, religious groups and
organisations in the country, the government was compelled to take this
decision, the government said.
Golden Age of Film Censorship...
Updated details of old ban to The Opening of Misty Beethoven
Thanks to Gary
The uncut region 0 DVD is available at
Adult Video Universe
The Opening of Misty Beethoven
is a 1975 US adult film by Radley Metzger (Henri Paris)
A hardcore classic based upon Pygmalion.The BBFC rejected the 1977 cinema release.
The BBFC cut
1:55s from the softcore 1983 cinema release
The hardcore version was passed R18 uncut for the 2005 Arrow DVD (maybe
not released though)
IMDb: Simply a great film
Radley Metzger has created an unbelievable
amalgamation of great script, fantastic actors, and the best production
value I've ever seen. Other films may have spent more on cheesy helicopter
shots or period costumes, but you will never find a porn movie as good as
this. The opening of Misty Beethoven holds up not only under the porn
standard, but under any film standards. Simply a great film.
Computer files can be considered deleted when it is beyond your control to undelete them
A law judgment suggesting that computer files can be considered deleted if it is beyond your capability to undelete them. Previously files that could be undeleted by computer forensics could still be considered as in your possession.
R v Christopher Rowe: CA (Crim Div): 3 November 2008
The appellant (R) appealed against his conviction for 12 counts of possessing indecent photographs of children on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The police seized R's computer and 8 disks which contained several deleted files and two non-deleted files of images of child pornography, and two movie images. There were also three deleted files of child pornography on the computer.
At trial, experts agreed that R would have needed specialist software to access the deleted files, which he did not appear to have. It was not possible for them to prove whether the deleted files had actually been viewed. The last time that the
non-deleted files had been accessed was years before the date on the indictment.
Held: The convictions on the counts relating to the deleted files were unsafe as R no longer had custody or control of the images, R v Porter (Ross Warwick)  EWCA Crim 560,  1 WLR 2633 applied. The original jury were not directed to consider
the potential significance that the deleted files had on R's ability to have had knowledge of the images. The counts relating to the deleted images were quashed.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
The clauses banning the possession of extreme pornography came into force on the 26th January 2009
See also Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Guidelines
See also Government Guidance on Dangerous Pictures
Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images
(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.
(2) An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—
(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image.
(3) 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.
(4) Where (as found in the person's possession) an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.
(5) So, for example, where—
(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and
(b) having regard to those images as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be
found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.
(6) An “extreme image” is an image which—
(a) falls within subsection (7), and
(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
(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,
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.
(8 ) In this section “image” means—
(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means); or
(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).
(9) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).
(10) 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; or
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. [see note below]
Section 64 Exclusion of classified films etc.
(1) Section 63 does not apply to excluded images.
(2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(4) Where an extracted image is one of a series of images contained in the recording, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images; and section 63(5) applies in connection with determining that question as it applies in connection with
determining whether an image is pornographic.
(5) In determining for the purposes of this section whether a recording is a recording of the whole or part of a classified work, any alteration attributable to—
(a) a defect caused for technical reasons or by inadvertence on the part of any person, or
(b) the inclusion in the recording of any extraneous material (such as advertisements), is to be disregarded.
(6) Nothing in this section is to be taken as affecting any duty of a designated authority to have regard to section 63 (along with other enactments creating criminal offences) in determining whether a video work is suitable for a
classification certificate to be issued in respect of it.
(7) In this section—
“classified work” means (subject to subsection (8 )) a video work in respect of which a classification certificate has been issued by a designated authority (whether before or after the commencement of this section);
“classification certificate” and “video work” have the same meanings as in the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c. 39);
“designated authority” means an authority which has been designated by the Secretary of State under section 4 of that Act;
“extract” includes an extract consisting of a single image;
“image” and “pornographic” have the same meanings as in section 63;
“recording” means any disc, tape or other device capable of storing data electronically and from which images may be produced (by any means).
(8 ) Section 22(3) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (effect of alterations) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Act.
Section 65 Defence
(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 63, it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The matters are—
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the
(b) that the person 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 the person—
(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
(3) In this section “extreme pornographic image” and “image” have the same meanings as in section 63.
Section 66 Defence: participation in consensual acts
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person ("D") is charged with an offence under section 63, and
(b) the offence relates to an image that portrays an act or acts within paragraphs (a) to (c) (but none within paragraph (d)) of subsection (7) of that section.
(2) It is a defence for D to prove—
(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and
(b) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and
(c) if the image portrays an act within section 63(7)(c), that what is portrayed as a human corpse was not in fact a corpse.
(3) For the purposes of this section harm inflicted on a person is "non-consensual" harm if—
(a) the harm is of such a nature that the person cannot, in law, consent to it being inflicted on himself or herself; or
(b) where the person can, in law, consent to it being so inflicted, the person does not in fact consent to it being so inflicted."
67 Penalties etc. for possession of extreme pornographic images
(1) This section has effect where a person is guilty of an offence under section 63.
(2) Except where subsection (3) applies to the offence, the offender is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant period or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine or both.
(3) If the offence relates to an image that does not portray any act within section 63(7)(a) or (b), the offender is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant period or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine or both.
(4) In subsection (2)(a) or (3)(a) “the relevant period” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, 12 months;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, 6 months.
68 Special rules relating to providers of information society services
Schedule 14 makes special provision in connection with the operation of section 63 in relation to persons providing information society services within the meaning of that Schedule.
Note: Consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions
A protection hardly worth the paper it is not written on!
Where the consent of the DPP to institute proceedings is required, this may be given by a Crown Prosecutor by virtue of section 1(7) Prosecution of Offences Act (the 1985 Act). The decision to grant consent should be taken by
applying the principles in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and CPS Legal Guidance. A Crown Prosecutor must specifically consider the case and decide whether or not proceedings should be instituted or continued.
Although there is no requirement for consent to be given in writing, the existence of a written record is helpful in answering any subsequent challenge on the point. Section 26 of the POA provides that any document purporting to be
the signed consent of a Law Officer, the DPP or a Crown Prosecutor shall be admissible as prima facie evidence without further proof .
Thus, although there is no requirement for consent to be signified in any particular form, where it is in writing and signed it is prima facie evidence of the existence of the relevant consent. Therefore, in all cases requiring the
prior consent of the DPP, prosecutors should certify that this has been given by completing the appropriate form.
Teaching careers at risk for possessing adult porn
Thanks to Andrea
See Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act
The Government recently announced an extension to the vetting of adults who work with children
See full article
from the BBC
More than one in four adults in England will have to register with child protection authorities next year, under an expanded safeguarding scheme.
Anyone working or volunteering with young people or vulnerable adults will have to register.
The government says 11.3 million people will be on a database, with registration costing £64 per person.
All well and good, maybe...but further details
reveal that one criterion for exclusion from working with both children and adults is:
conduct involving sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings (including possession of such images), if it appears to IBB that the conduct is inappropriate
Note that this isn't limited to the "extreme porn" law definitions - so potentially even larger amount of material (including lots more BDSM) would be included.
Also note it says “Image” means an image produced by any means, whether of a real or imaginary subject., so this includes anime, cartoons, art etc.
Who'd be a teacher when ones career is always at risk from such potentially trivial reasons. And no doubt "better safe than sorry" will trump any "benefit of the doubt".
28th June 2008
More than 20,000 unsuitable people were stopped from working with children and vulnerable adults last year as a direct result of checks by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), latest figures show.
The figures for the year 2007 published today bring the total of unsuitable people prevented from working with vulnerable groups to more than 80,000 in the last four years.
Adult, consensual and not extreme
context. As to violence, there should be no dwelling on detail and no emphasis on blood
and injuries. Sexual violence can only be implied or briefly indicated and in any case
without physical detail. Likewise, sexual activity may only be implied. Sexual references
must do no more than reflect standards set by sex education in schools. There can be
horror movies at "12" but limited to occasional gory moments. Similarly,
references to soft drugs or scenes where soft drugs are used must be brief and few in
number. They must be justified by context and indicate the dangers. Hard drugs are off
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was classified at "12"
because the considerable violence was cast in the form of stylised martial arts. It is
always a consideration to what extent form distances violence from the viewer. To take a
different example, the excellent Australian film, The Dish, seemed to me
to be a sort of modern miracle because of the almost complete absence of sex and violence.
The "dish" refers to an Australian radio telescope which found itself playing an
important role in the American moon landing.
Here, the decision went the other way. The Dish would have been a PG
(parental guidance) except for one bit of bad language; this raised it to the
"12" category. Another example of a "12" is Pearl Harbor,
which seems to be as big a commercial disaster for the makers as the actual event was for
the American navy. The Mummy Returns, now for me indelibly associated
with Lady Thatcher ever since her ponderous reference to it, is also, like its
predecessor, a "12".
As it happens, a good illustration of the difficulties of the mandatory "12"
is coming up. Lara Croft Tomb Raider, rated "12", will open
shortly. This is a big-budget film version of a successful computer game. It is a story of
a quest for a magic device which gives the possessor the power to control time. The
acrobatic, all-guns-blazing Lara fights an evil society - as well as passing robots - for
Large numbers of youngsters, whether or not they have quite reached their 12th
birthdays, will want to go to it for they have already seen the Lara Croft character on
computer screens. As a matter of fact, though, the version submitted to the BBFC did
conflict with the rule that "realistic and contemporary weapons should not be
glamorised". The main problem concerned shots emphasising the attractiveness of flick
knives. The film company took the board's concerns seriously and brought the movie into
line with the "12" guidelines.
There are, however, major problems confronting any plan to make the "12"
certificate advisory. One is the issue of accompaniment. It is difficult to write a rule
which ensures that under 12s will be accompanied by a parent or responsible adult. At the
box office window, the cinema staff have no way of ascertaining whether the older person
who presents him or herself is indeed the parent or nominated by the parent. Insisting on
adult accompaniment might encourage some kids to ask complete strangers to take them into
When older readers of this newspaper were young teenagers, using a willing stranger to
get one into a forbidden film was a recognised practice and I don't remember any reports
of harmful experiences. But those days of innocence have passed. Paedophiles might see an
opportunity. Is there any way of designing a satisfactory accompaniment requirement?
Another issue is consumer information. If parents are to decide whether to let younger
children go to a "12" rated movie, they need to know what sort of film it is.
The board provides consumer advice on its
every film and video passed. But the board has no power to insist that the film and video
industry uses it in its advertising. Until now, the cinema distributors and owners have
A further question is the manner in which the board should proceed in exploring the
case for a change. The frame within which the board operates is the law. In the cinema,
the most relevant statutes are The Protection of Children Act 1978, The Obscene
Publications Act 1959, the 1937 act which makes it illegal to show any scene involving
actual cruelty to animals and the new legislation on human rights.
Within these bounds, the board sites its detailed guidelines and these govern
individual classification decisions. The important point is that the board's guidelines
are designed to reflect public opinion as closely as possible. In a sense, the board has
no view of its own. It does what it believes the public, particularly parents, wish it to
do. In turn, cinema owners can operate only if they have a licence from the local
authority, an invariable condition of which is that the board categories be observed
unless the authority makes an exception for a specific film.
How, then, to test the proposition that "12" should become advisory rather
than mandatory? I think, the question must be put in the following form: would parents
approve a relaxation in the rules provided that useful consumer information about
individual "12" category films was readily available? Of course, this begs the
further question whether better information can be provided. To this end, the co-operation
of the cinema owners and distributors and involvement of local authorities will be
There are signs that this can be secured. And once the board can put the question in a
form which ties in better consumer information, then the methods used to test public
opinion can be used again. It may also be possible to organise an experiment, perhaps
lasting three to six months, in a single local authority area. The bottom line, however,
is that the board will not make a permanent change unless satisfied the public approves.
Public opinion will have the decisive say.