Re: Who Possessed Men Extreme Porn Showing...
Alfonzo Liebenstein
Mr Kelly, 25, of Stapleford Abbots in Romford, Essex, pleaded guilty to one count of possessing an extreme pornographic image likely to cause injury, and three counts of possessing pornographic images involving animals.
Mr Ticehurst, 28, of Newlands Road on Canvey Island, pleaded guilty to one count of possessing an extreme pornographic image likely to cause injury, and two counts of possessing pornographic images involving animals.
The offence of possessing an extreme pornographic image criminalises the possession of a limited range of extreme sexual and violent material. When considering what may be classified as extreme pornography, it should be borne in mind that all extreme pornography is obscene (section 63(6)(b) of the Act) but not all obscene material is extreme.
In cases where there is evidence that the suspect has published or distributed extreme pornographic images, prosecutors may charge the suspect with an offence contrary to the Obscene Publications Act (see Legal Guidance on Obscene Publications), rather than possession of extreme pornographic images. There is no specific offence of distributing or publishing an extreme pornographic image. Further, the offence is not intended to cover additional material beyond what is illegal to publish under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, and covers a more limited range of material than the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
In Baddiel [2016] EWCA Crim 474, the defendant was charged with possession of three extreme pornographic images sent to his phone in a series of unsolicited WhatsApp messages, addressed to a group of people. The images portrayed acts of intercourse or oral sex with an animal. The defendant contended that under s63(3), as to whether or not an image is pornographic, regard had to be had to the relevant purpose of the sender in sending the image.
Possession of extreme pornographic images is an either way offence. The maximum penalty for possession of extreme pornographic images involving necrophilia or bestiality is two years' imprisonment and/or a fine; for other images it is three years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
The offence of possession of extreme pornographic images requires the consent of the DPP for the institution of proceedings. A Crown Prosecutor can give consent on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions by virtue of section 1(7) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. A Crown Prosecutor ought specifically to consider the case and decide whether or not proceedings should be instituted or continued. Legal Guidance on Consents to Prosecute is available.
The existing powers to make a Deprivation Order under section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2000 (which applies to all convictions on or after 1 December 2020) will apply to extreme pornographic images and the devices used to locate and store them.
Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is a law in the United Kingdom criminalising possession of what it refers to as "extreme pornographic images".[1] The law came into force on 26 January 2009.[2][3] The legislation was brought in following the murder of Jane Longhurst by a man who was said at the time of his trial to have had "extreme pornography" in his possession at the time of the death. The law has been more widely used than originally predicted, raising concerns as to whether the legislation is being used for prosecutions beyond the scope originally envisaged by parliament.
After Graham Coutts' conviction in February 2004, the government and police forces called for "violent" adult pornography sites to be shut down[10][11][12] and Jane Longhurst's mother and sister launched a campaign against such sites. A petition (which gained 50,000 signatures) promoted by MP Martin Salter was submitted to the government, demanding a ban of "extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification".The government was unsuccessful in shutting down such sites, since they are based in other countries and are legally made with consenting adults. In August 2005 the British government consulted on, instead, criminalising the possession of such images.
On 30 August 2006 the government published the results of the consultation, and announced its intention to introduce a possession ban on all extreme pornography as soon as the legislative timetable allowed. Opinions on the proposals were sharply divided in the consultation, with 61 percent (241 out of 397) of responses rejecting the need for stronger laws in this area and 36 percent in favour (3 percent gave no opinion). The proposed maximum penalty for possession of these images was three years' imprisonment.[13]
On 26 June 2007, the government published the plans as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. The bill extended the scope of the proposals from "serious, disabling injury" to "serious injury".The law came into force on 26 January 2009.In July 2009, Baroness O'Cathain proposed an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Act which would bring in an equivalent law for "extreme pornographic writings".[14][15]
In August 2012, Simon Walsh, a former aide to then-mayor of London Boris Johnson, was charged with possessing five images of "extreme pornography", which were not found by police on his computers, but as email attachments on a Hotmail server account. He was found not guilty on all counts. Three images were of urethral sounding, and two of anal fisting. The images were all of consensual adult sexual activity.[16][43] The Crown Prosecution Service maintains that the acts depicted were "extreme" even if the jury disagreed in this case.[18]
Material is considered extreme pornography only if the main purpose of creating it was to produce sexual arousal. This rules out most mainstream films, documentaries, war footage or instructional videos (regardless of content), although these would be included if images were extracted from them for the purpose of sexual arousal. Textual material or cartoon depictions are also excluded, regardless of theme or detail.
In September 2007 the government published a Rapid Evidence Assessment by Catherine Itzin, Ann Taket and Liz Kelly, investigating "the evidence of harm relating to exposure to extreme pornographic material".[54] This was criticised (in a statement signed by over 40 academics) as being "extremely poor, based on contested findings and accumulated results. It is one-sided and simply ignores the considerable research tradition into 'extreme' (be they violent or sexually explicit) materials within the UK's Humanities and Social Sciences".[55]
The Government has conflated the issue with participants being abused in the production of such images, with Martin Salter claiming the existence of snuff films where women are raped and murdered on camera in Guatemala.[59][60] However, no such examples of images have been shown to exist and the sites referred to by the government are instead those produced in the UK and US with consenting actors (see "Sites labelled as 'extreme pornography'", below).
A man appeared before Swansea magistrates this week accused of possessing extreme porn images, including one which allegedly shows "a person performing an act of intercourse with a dead animal, namely a squid."
The Sun reported this week that Andrew Dymond, 46, from Mumbles, Swansea was up before Swansea magistrates charged with possessing "an extreme pornographic image which portrayed in an explicit and realistic way a person performing an act of intercourse with a dead animal, namely a squid, which was grossly offensive, disgusting or of obscene character".
The possession and distribution of adult pornography is, generally speaking, not illegal (although, as of 2009, it's an offence to possess extreme pornographic images). But the MoJ data isn't specific so we don't know in what proportion of cases the "obscene material" involved children rather than adults. We'll be submitting a Freedom of Information request to the MoJ and the Crown Prosecution Service in case either one of them holds this information.
The Northern Irish authorities wanted to prosecute the man for two charges of possessing "extreme pornography", in relation to the alleged images of bestiality, and a further 15 charges for allegations that he made indecent images of children.
Mr Justice Naidoo agreed to surrender the 72-year-old to face the allegations of creating indecent images of children, but said there is no offence in Ireland that corresponds to the possession of extreme pornography.
He said that the action requires intention and not just recklessness or possession. He said that if someone possesses extreme pornography privately, that is not a criminal offence in this jurisdiction.
Overall, this book presents a detailed description of the law relating to extreme pornography in England & Wales. Due to the novelty of this legislative approach, when compared with most other jurisdictions, the work provides a useful introduction to the debates and controversies in the field. Further research will help elucidate the impacts of the change in the law to include rape pornography, as well as develop the conceptual and theoretical frameworks necessary to understand the role and place of this law in current debates relating to the prevalence of sexual harassment, sexual violence and the harms of pornography.
A Blackpool man has been accused of illegally possessing extreme pornography including octo-porn at his home. The 27-year-old from Boothroyden, North Shore, around a mile north of the town centre, was alleged to be in possession of the porn at his home between 2013 and 2015.
Billson, who was living in the Liverpool area at the time of the offences, admitted two charges of possessing extreme pornographic images of children and one of possessing prohibited images of children.
In any criminal case involving extreme pornographic images, it will fall to the judge or jury to determine whether an image should be accordingly classified. Importantly, the intention of the defendant is not to be considered relevant to the proceedings, which means that even if someone claims not to have fully understood what the image contained or otherwise made an excuse about their intentions in possessing the image, it would make no difference to the outcome of the case.
aa06259810