where to find criminal case law on the net
Discussion
Try google scholar 
or http://www.venables.co.uk/caselaw.htm
or http://www.venables.co.uk/caselaw.htm
Edited by Cas_P on Saturday 17th July 16:41
SS2. said:
Try www.bailii.org.
good site, i work for a LA, its like employment tribunals galore in there!Mojooo said:
SS2. said:
Try www.bailii.org.
good site, i work for a LA, its like employment tribunals galore in there!R v Collier [2004] EWCA Crim 1411
ta
Footnote in Stones Justices:
The "it" in Sect 162 (2) (b) refers to an indecent image of a child and not an indecent image alone, thus, the defence is available where the defendant has reason to suspect that the image was indecent but not that it was an indecent imgae of a child.
[R v Collier 2004 EWCA Crim 1411 etc etc.]
The "it" in Sect 162 (2) (b) refers to an indecent image of a child and not an indecent image alone, thus, the defence is available where the defendant has reason to suspect that the image was indecent but not that it was an indecent imgae of a child.
[R v Collier 2004 EWCA Crim 1411 etc etc.]
Lexis gives us:
Police searched the defendant’s house. They seized seven videotapes which contained adult homosexual pornographic films which had trailers of male children in sexually explicit acts after the films and two compact discs which contained images of adult homosexual pictures and four sexual images of children. The defendant was charged with eleven counts of possession of an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children, contrary to s 160(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1999. The defendant applied to the judge for a legal ruling, inter alia, on whether the defendant had a defence if he had had reason to suspect that the images were indecent but no reason to suspect that a photograph was an indecent image of a child, pursuant to s 160(2)(b) of the Act. The judge ruled that the defendant had no defence on his own admission because could not rely on the defence if he had reason to suspect that the images were indecent. The defendant pleaded guilty on rearraignment and appealed against conviction.The defendant contended, inter alia, that the judge had misconstrued s 160(2)(b). The Crown conceded that the judge had erred in his interpretation of that provision.
Held – The appeal would be allowed.The right interpretation looking at s 160(2) as a whole, was that to be deprived of the statutory defence the defendant had to have reason to suspect that the indecent images were of a child.The ‘it’ in the definition ‘nor had any cause to suspect it to be indecent’ in s 160(2)(b) referred to the indecent photograph of a child. That interpretation gained support from the defences in s 160(2)(a) and 160(2)(c) which proceed on the assumption that the photograph was an indecent image of a child not an indecent image alone. Furthermore, it would be wrong to penalise a person for photographs he had not seen when he did not know or have a reason to suspect that they were indecent images of children, taking into account the limited requirements to satisfy the test of possession and nature of the penalties. In those circumstances, the judge had erred in his ruling and the conviction was unsafe as the defendant’s guilty plea was based on that ruling
Police searched the defendant’s house. They seized seven videotapes which contained adult homosexual pornographic films which had trailers of male children in sexually explicit acts after the films and two compact discs which contained images of adult homosexual pictures and four sexual images of children. The defendant was charged with eleven counts of possession of an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children, contrary to s 160(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1999. The defendant applied to the judge for a legal ruling, inter alia, on whether the defendant had a defence if he had had reason to suspect that the images were indecent but no reason to suspect that a photograph was an indecent image of a child, pursuant to s 160(2)(b) of the Act. The judge ruled that the defendant had no defence on his own admission because could not rely on the defence if he had reason to suspect that the images were indecent. The defendant pleaded guilty on rearraignment and appealed against conviction.The defendant contended, inter alia, that the judge had misconstrued s 160(2)(b). The Crown conceded that the judge had erred in his interpretation of that provision.
Held – The appeal would be allowed.The right interpretation looking at s 160(2) as a whole, was that to be deprived of the statutory defence the defendant had to have reason to suspect that the indecent images were of a child.The ‘it’ in the definition ‘nor had any cause to suspect it to be indecent’ in s 160(2)(b) referred to the indecent photograph of a child. That interpretation gained support from the defences in s 160(2)(a) and 160(2)(c) which proceed on the assumption that the photograph was an indecent image of a child not an indecent image alone. Furthermore, it would be wrong to penalise a person for photographs he had not seen when he did not know or have a reason to suspect that they were indecent images of children, taking into account the limited requirements to satisfy the test of possession and nature of the penalties. In those circumstances, the judge had erred in his ruling and the conviction was unsafe as the defendant’s guilty plea was based on that ruling
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff