R v (1) GRAHAM WESTGARTH SMITH (2) MIKE JAYSON (2002)

[Quentin Campbell]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Bohm [mailto:nbohm@ernest.net]=20
> Sent: 25 April 2002 12:43
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: R v (1) GRAHAM WESTGARTH SMITH (2) MIKE JAYSON (2002)
>=20
[snip]
>=20
> True; but in the legal context, this results in people who=20
> make images by photographing child abuse being placed in the=20
> same legal category as people who view the result.  It seems=20
> surprising for the legislature to have intended this result,=20
> and not very sensible (viewers seem to me much less=20
> reprehensible than direct abusers; and unless they pay for=20
> the images, it is difficult to see that they provide any=20
> incentive to the abusers).

An interesting thought. But even where the consumer provides incentive
to the supplier by way of payment then in other areas of law a
distinction still seems to be made between consumer and supplier.

For example possession of a small amount of canabis is considered by the
Police (and the Law itself?) less serious than supplying it.

Perhaps it is assumed that drug users rarely become drug suppliers but
that viewers of indecent images of chidren are thought likely to become
direct abusers.=20

I know that assumption in relation to drug users is not true. Perhaps
others may know whether the assumption about viewers of child porn is
true or not?

Most likely the interpretation of the Child Protection Act simply
reflects in some way the fact that society finds any connection to child
abuse much more distressing and abhorrent than use of "soft" drugs.=20

Quentin