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

[Nicholas Bohm]

At 13:49 25/04/2002 +0100, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>	On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:43:17 +0100
>	Nicholas Bohm <nbohm@ernest.net> said...
>
>> True; but in the legal context, this results in people who make images by
>> photographing child abuse being placed in the same legal category as people
>> who view the result. 
>
>No, I don't follow that. They have taken the photograph. They have
>presumably looked at it. They presumably own it. So they are guilty of
>possessing it.

Yes, and of making it, in the conventional sense.

>But they are also guilty of the worse offence of performing the abuse,
>or aiding and abetting it, or whatever. So they could (and proabably
>should) be charged with both.

Probably.

>Note, however, that my example actually referred to the person who made
>a print from the negative, who may not actually have been present when
>the abuse occured.

That's where my point comes in:  someone who makes a print from a negative,
or downloads an image to view it, is treated as being just as much a
"maker" as the person who took the photograph from life, thus lumping their
acts together when most people would regard them as falling into different
categories.

Regards

Nicholas

Salkyns, Great Canfield,
Takeley, Bishop’s Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone	01279 871272	(+44 1279 871272)
Fax	01279 870215	(+44 1279 870215)
Mobile	07715 419728 (+44 7715 419728)

PGP RSA 1024 bit public key ID: 0x08340015.  Fingerprint:
9E 15 FB 2A 54 96 24 37  98 A2 E0 D1 34 13 48 07
PGP DSS/DH 1024/3072 public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF