PCD Solicitors are pleased to have secured a decision of No Further Action for a client accused of possession of indecent images.
After instruction, our firm made extensive pre-charge representations that sought an end to the police’s investigation, and challenge the disproportionate bail conditions imposed against Client N after his arrest. This resulted in a ‘No Further Action’ (NFA) decision, ending the investigation and preventing a prosecution that would have resulted in the client appearing in court.
Background:
Client N instructed PCD Solicitors after police executed a warrant at his home, during which 14 electronic devices were seized by officers for forensic examination. These included a laptop, tablets, USB drives, and a digital streaming device.
After this search, Client N was arrested and released on bail under stringent pre-charge conditions, which included no unsupervised contact with any person under the age of 18, including his own children. As a teacher and father, these restrictions prevented him from working and forced him to leave his family home.
The Allegation:
Police accused Client N 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.
Possession of indecent images is 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 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 often 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:
PCD Solicitors were instructed to make pre-charge representations, which included amendments to his bail conditions that would allow him to return home to his wife and children. In consideration of the severity of these restrictions in the absence of any charge or conviction, our solicitors argued that:
- The allegations against Client N concerned a non-contact offence, and imposing no-contact restrictions was therefore disproportionate to the nature of the alleged offence;
- Excluding him from his family home and denying him unsupervised contact with his children unjustly and unnecessarily interfered with Client N’s human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and;
- These conditions amounted to punishment without charge or conviction.
Our team also made further submissions that challenged the standard and necessity of the police investigation as a whole, seeking to highlight discrepancies in evidence and therefore prevent a prosecution.
The Result:
Ater our representations, police informed Client N that their investigation would conclude with a decision of No Further Action, closing their case without charge. Consequently, the punitive bail conditions imposed after his arrest expired, and Client N was allowed to return to his family.
On this outcome, Marcus Johnstone, solicitor and managing director, said:
‘We are delighted to have secured an NFA decision for Client N, shielding him from prosecution and what might have been years of protracted suffering under stringent and disproportionate bail conditions.
The terms imposed on Client N after his arrest were nothing short of extreme: despite not being found guilty of a crime, he was subjected to excessive restrictions that had a severe and detrimental impact on him, his health, and his family.
We are pleased that the police were convinced of these concerns, reflected in their decision to end their investigation and issue a NFA. This case really highlights the importance of proactive pre-charge engagement, which can shield clients from a lengthy and costly prosecution.’
PCD Solicitors are a nationwide criminal defence firm, specialising in defending false allegations of sexual crimes. If you or a relative is under investigation for a sexual offence and wish to prevent charges from being made, you can contact our team here.