Case Outcome | PCD Solicitors Secure Closure of Indecent Images Investigation

Background:

Client M instructed PCD Solicitors two years after his arrest on suspicion of possession of indecent images of children. Officers had seized a number of electronic devices during a raid on his home, and the client had answered questions under caution in a subsequent series of police station interviews. Prior to instructing PCD Solicitors, he had obtained the free advice of a duty solicitor. 

Although he was an adult at the time of his arrest, the police alleged that Client M had downloaded indecent images of children when he himself was under the age of 18. This meant that, although the client was investigated as an adult, his alleged offending had to be considered in the context of his being a child.

What was the alleged offence?

Police accused Client M of possession of indecent images of children. Considered one of the most serious non-contact sexual offences, convictions can lead to compulsory registration as a sex offender and carries a maximum custodial sentence of ten years.

Indecent images are proscribed under the Protection of Children Act 1978, which makes it a criminal offence to ‘produce’ (create), distribute, publish, and ‘make’ (including downloading) illegal images, and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which also criminalises their possession. 

Indecent images are categorised according to the nature and severity of the content, including the nature of the sexual acts depicted. These categories are outlined under Sentencing Council Guidelines, and are:

• Category A: Images depicting penetrative sexual activity
• Category B: Images depicting both non-penetrative sexual activity or explicit sexual activity
• Category C: Images that depict sexual or sexually suggestive content, but do not fall under categories A or B.

The categorisation of such images is usually carried out by specialist officers who are trained in investigating child abuse imagery. In doing so, detectives refer to the Child Abuse Image Database (CAID), a national system that is used to identify, categorise and manage indecent images of children.

The CAID works by using a process known as ‘digital hash matching.’ Every image or video created has a unique digital signature called a ‘hash value’, which can be best compared to a fingerprint. If the hash value of an image matches that of an image already stored on the CAID, the file is automatically flagged as an indecent image and categorised as A, B or C.

Our Approach:

During his consultation with PCD Solicitors, Client M said he was seeking a firm that would be proactive in engaging with the police and cultivating his personal interests and circumstances into an effective defence. Immediately, our team established communication with the investigating force and sought the disclosure of evidence they had gathered over the course of their investigation ahead of a scheduled, voluntary interview. This then informed the creation of a cohesive defence strategy, which included the submission of a prepared statement to the police.

PCD Solicitors specialise in managing complex youth law cases. Over the course of Client M’s interview and in subsequent engagement with the investigating force, our solicitors advised officers of the relevant personal context surrounding the client’s alleged criminal behaviour, his age when the alleged offending took place, and his willingness to engage with third-party support. They also highlighted the importance of the Crown Prosecution Service's test for bringing a prosecution, and argued that it would not be in the best interests of the public for Client M to stand trial. 

The Result:

During discussions, the police informed our team that their intended course of action was a conditional caution. Although this would have prevented Client M from appearing in court, our solicitors convincingly argued that this would have an adverse and disproportionate impact on his life and career, and instead advocated for the case to be closed with No Further Action. Following proactive engagement and cooperation by Client M with the police on the careful advice of our solicitors, authorities agreed to make an Outcome 22 decision. 

What is an Outcome 22 decision?

An Outcome 22 decision is a legal mechanism where an individual under investigation for an offence can avoid prosecution. They were introduced in 2019, and are often considered in cases involving children. 

There are two types of an Outcome 22 decision: a deferred prosecution, where an individual must admit responsibility for the crime but avoids being tried at court, and a No Further Action decision, which does not require an individual to accept guilt. Both are a form of Out of Court Disposal, and both usually involve referral to educational or counselling services. 

In Client M’s case, an Outcome 22 decision was authorised with No Further Action, meaning he had to make no admission of guilt. He agreed to take part in a supportive educational programme, and was shielded from a prosecution and possible conviction. 

On this outcome, solicitor and managing director Marcus Johnstone said:

‘We are pleased to have secured this result for Client M at the end of what was a very complex case. When he instructed our firm, he was rightly frustrated that no substantive work had been done in advancing his needs and interests, and was justifiably concerned that the police were not aware of specific, relevant information that might have contextualised the police's investigation.

Across every case we advise, we must act on what the client tells us and how they wish to proceed. In this case, Client M was clear as to his objectives, and our team worked to convey these by advising on a rigorous and effective defence. 

I am delighted that the police were convinced by our arguments and authorised a No Further Action decision, saving Client M and the courts system from a long, costly and unnecessary prosecution.'