nicked for porno vid on phone.
Discussion
EDP24 said:
Lowestoft teenager has become one of the first people to fall foul of a new law which bans the possession of “grossly offensive” pornographic images.
In January this year, a new law came into force as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 making it an offence to possess any extreme images which are deemed to be “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.
Yesterday, Lowestoft teenager Damien Wentworth, of Laurel Road, was fined after police found a short video on his mobile telephone which contained an extreme image. The EDP cannot reveal the content of the image because of its pornographic nature.
Lowestoft magistrates court heard that Damien Wentworth's mobile telephone was seized by police in connection with another incident and that the video clip, which had been sent to him several years previously, was found stored on his memory card.
Colette Griffiths, prosecuting, said that when he was interviewed by officers, the 18-year-old said he was aware of the film clip and had kept it on his phone after it was sent to him.
Wentworth yesterday pleaded guilty to possessing an extreme pornographic image.
His solicitor Richard Mann said: “Technically, he is guilty of the offence, but I would say that he didn't even know it was an offence to have this on his phone.
“I can't blame him for that, as I didn't know that either and nor did the solicitors I have spoken to in court today. It is a law which came into force this year, so it is hardly a surprise that he didn't know.”
Mr Mann said that Wentworth had received the image several years ago. He said: “He would no doubt say that at the time, everyone was sending these sort of images around…This was just one image on his phone and something which he had not looked at for some time. He was not putting it on the internet or distributing it to anybody.”
Wentworth was ordered to pay £175 in fines and costs. Magistrates also ordered the destruction of the image.
The new law covers any images, including those stored on mobile telephones, DVDs and on computer hard disks. It also covers staged acts and applies whether or not those involved have consented.
So how the fIn January this year, a new law came into force as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 making it an offence to possess any extreme images which are deemed to be “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.
Yesterday, Lowestoft teenager Damien Wentworth, of Laurel Road, was fined after police found a short video on his mobile telephone which contained an extreme image. The EDP cannot reveal the content of the image because of its pornographic nature.
Lowestoft magistrates court heard that Damien Wentworth's mobile telephone was seized by police in connection with another incident and that the video clip, which had been sent to him several years previously, was found stored on his memory card.
Colette Griffiths, prosecuting, said that when he was interviewed by officers, the 18-year-old said he was aware of the film clip and had kept it on his phone after it was sent to him.
Wentworth yesterday pleaded guilty to possessing an extreme pornographic image.
His solicitor Richard Mann said: “Technically, he is guilty of the offence, but I would say that he didn't even know it was an offence to have this on his phone.
“I can't blame him for that, as I didn't know that either and nor did the solicitors I have spoken to in court today. It is a law which came into force this year, so it is hardly a surprise that he didn't know.”
Mr Mann said that Wentworth had received the image several years ago. He said: “He would no doubt say that at the time, everyone was sending these sort of images around…This was just one image on his phone and something which he had not looked at for some time. He was not putting it on the internet or distributing it to anybody.”
Wentworth was ordered to pay £175 in fines and costs. Magistrates also ordered the destruction of the image.
The new law covers any images, including those stored on mobile telephones, DVDs and on computer hard disks. It also covers staged acts and applies whether or not those involved have consented.
k would anyone know if somthing was illegal or not?I guess walking into a police station and asking 'is this clip illegal' would mean instant arrest if it was.
colonel c said:
In January this year, a new law came into force as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 making it an offence to possess any extreme images which are deemed to be “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.
who decides what is "extreme" and what is not?Where is the line? And how can staged acts be illegal?
This is stupid....unless the people in the photos/videos are doing something against their will, I don't think any image can be illegal (unless its of beastiality etc.)
Whilst we're on the subject - it is not illegal to have watersports videos where you can watch someone peeing, but it is illegal to watch someone peeing on someone else - even if they consent - work that one out?
Rules for rules sake!
This is stupid....unless the people in the photos/videos are doing something against their will, I don't think any image can be illegal (unless its of beastiality etc.)
Whilst we're on the subject - it is not illegal to have watersports videos where you can watch someone peeing, but it is illegal to watch someone peeing on someone else - even if they consent - work that one out?
Rules for rules sake!
MonkeyMatt said:
Defcon5 said:
But given you dont have any choice but to accept a picture message that is sent to you, how can this possibly work?
You delete it when your realise its fooking discusting! there is a difference between a bit of porn and somthing that is vile!ds, and the space where that file as stored isn't written over, they could recover it and do you anywayAdam B said:
colonel c said:
In January this year, a new law came into force as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 making it an offence to possess any extreme images which are deemed to be “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.
who decides what is "extreme" and what is not?If he had gone to a high court with a jury then the jury decides what is offensive.
I sat on a case several years ago now that tried to do some fella working at a porno shop in Soho. The BiB had taken evidence which essentially was a load of hardcore euro bonking.
We the jury spent 3 days looking at all the evidence, videos, mags before
The important point about images (then) was that they would "have to deprave and corrupt the majority of people that might see it" IIRC. euro porn wouldn't do that. even the several little old ladies on the jury couldn't find the guy at fault. Randy old gits.
I guess the new law wording takes that choice away?
Wasn't this law brought in because the mother of a woman who was killed by a bloke she met on the internet got a petition signed by about 10,00 people ? Now, because of this it's illegal to have images of even as staged an sex scene that depicts violence (such as holding a weapon to someone) even if all concerned were happy to take part. This also covered some sex acts which could be deemed to have caused injury think (fisting ?). So the image on his phone might have been something we all might have looked at and thought not much of, it might not necessarily have been kiddy images are anything that extreme.
EDP24 said:
The new law covers any images, including those stored on mobile telephones, DVDs and on computer hard disks. It also covers staged acts and applies whether or not those involved have consented.
I wonder if the Post Office has an exclusion, otherwise postmen could be committing a crime delivering pornj DVD's. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff