Indecent Images Solicitors

Possession of Indecent Images of children

The law in relation to sexual offences is vast and often complex, especially those concerned with the possession of indecent images of children.

We live in a world governed by social media and the use of the internet. This technological change has resulted in many individuals who, previously, would have never been involved in the criminal justice system, now finding themselves embroiled in it, especially in relation to the possession of indecent images of children or other types of extreme pornography.

At Richard Nelson LLP, we have a team of expert indecent images lawyers. We act with total discretion and without judgment, aiming to proactively defend rather than simply accept the prosecution’s case against you.

Attendance at the Police Station with a specialist indecent images solicitor is crucial. We assess the strength of the case against you and, if necessary, instruct forensic experts to examine computer technology using the latest techniques available.

We have a team of lawyers experienced in defending allegations relating to indecent images of children who can help you achieve the best possible outcome.

What are indecent images?

An indecent image is any image of a child (anyone under the age of 18) that would be considered indecent by right-thinking people. These images often include images of naked or partially clothed children.

What are the categories of indecent images?

Indecent images are divided into three categories based on their severity:

• Category A: Category A images are considered the most severe as they involve penetrative sexual activity, sexual activity with an animal or sadism.
• Category B: Category B images include images of non-penetrative sexual activity.
• Category C: Category C images include all other indecent images that do not fall within categories A and B, such as erotic posing. 

What is possession of indecent images?

To be in possession of indecent images, an individual must have the image(s) under their control or in their custody, enabling them to access or retrieve them. Additionally, the person must be aware that they possess the image(s) on the relevant device(s). However, knowledge of the content of these images is not a requirement for possession.

What does making and distributing indecent images mean?

The Protection of Children Act 1978 created offences in relation to the taking, permitting to be taken, making, distributing, showing, possessing, publishing, or possession of indecent images of children. These offences are triable either way but are predominantly heard in the Crown Court.

It is an offence for a person to take, permit to be taken, or make any indecent photograph(s), or pseudo-photograph(s), of a child. In addition to this, it is also an offence to possess, distribute, or publish such indecent images with a view of them being distributed or shown to another.

The court’s interpretation of ‘making’ indecent images is broad, and the following can amount to making indecent images;

• Opening an email attachment
• Downloading an indecent image
• Storing an image
• Accessing a website where an indecent image “pops up”

For the purposes of the Protection of Children Act, a person is said to have distributed an indecent image if he/she parts possession, exposes it, or offers it to others.

It is a defence to show that the person accused had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the image, namely in a court or law enforcement context, or that the person had not seen the image themselves and did not know, nor had cause, to suspect it to be indecent.

Read more about understanding the law on ‘making’ indecent images.

Prohibited images and AI-generated indecent images

The term ‘prohibited image’ refers to non-photographic images of children, including computer-generated images (CGI’s), cartoons, manga images and drawings.

These are classified as pseudo-photographs under Section 7(7) of the Protection of Children Act 1978, which defines them as images, created by computer graphics or otherwise, that appear to be photographs. Under Section 7(8), an image will be treated as depicting a child if the predominant impression is that the person shown is a child, even if some physical characteristics suggest otherwise.

AI-generated images of child sexual abuse may be classed as prohibited images under the Protection of Children Act 1978. It is a criminal offence to possess, create, or distribute such images, even if no real child was involved in their production. The legal focus is on the impression the image gives; if it appears to depict a child, it is likely to fall within the scope of the law.

What are extreme images?

Extreme images are images that meet the following criteria:

1. Pornographic (i.e. explicitly for sexual arousal).

2. Grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character

3. Portrays in an explicit and realistic way any of the following:

a) An act which threatens a person’s life, or

b) An act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals, or

c) An act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse (necrophilia), or

d) A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive) (bestiality), or

e) An act which involves the non-consensual penetration of a person’s vagina, anus or mouth by another with the other person’s penis or part of the other person’s body or anything else (rape or assault by penetration)

4. A reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons or animals were real.

The category of extreme images encompasses a wide range of activities that are considered grossly offensive, abusive, or otherwise disturbing in nature. Due to the complex and sensitive nature of such material, the classification of these images requires careful assessment by qualified experts. Our solicitors have collaborated with experienced professionals who have provided informed opinions on the categorisation of such images, ensuring that legal standards and definitions are properly applied.

Defences for possession of indecent images

There are only a limited number of defences available to a charge of possessing indecent images of children, as set out under section 160(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. 

One such defence includes situations where the images were received unsolicited and the individual did not keep them for an unreasonable period of time. However, these defences are often highly technical and require a detailed understanding of both the legal framework and the digital evidence involved. Successfully advancing a defence frequently depends on the input of experienced solicitors working closely with specialist forensic experts to analyse the origin, timing, and handling of the images. 

As indecent images solicitors, we can assess whether any of the defences may apply in your case, and advise on whether expert evidence should be obtained to support your position.

Police seizure of electronic devices

The police possess broad powers when it comes to seizing electronic devices during the course of an investigation. In many cases, officers are legally permitted to confiscate phones, laptops, or other digital equipment if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the items were either obtained through the commission of an offence or may contain evidence relevant to one. 

Once seized, these devices are typically sent for examination by independent forensic experts to extract and analyse potential digital evidence. A report is then produced by the expert. However, significant delays have become a growing concern, as forensic analysis units across the country face mounting backlogs. As a result, it can take many months, sometimes even years, for individuals to have their devices returned.

Sexual communication offences

Individuals under investigation for indecent images frequently face additional allegations of sexual communication with a child. Richard Nelson LLP’s sexual offence lawyers are able to provide legal assistance for these related matters as well.

Understanding UK law on indecent images

Indecent images are now categorised into Category A, B and C images depending on the type of sexual content depicted. Cases can be aggravated by many different factors, including the age of the child depicted or the volume of images possessed. Our solicitors can review your case and properly advise on the aggravating and mitigating factors that may affect the outcome of your sentence.

Being charged with an indecent image offence

If you have been charged with an offence involving indecent images, it means the Prosecution has decided to formally take your case to court. At this stage, it is essential to seek legal advice without delay. Our solicitors are experienced in reviewing the Prosecution’s evidence, which often includes complex forensic reports and digital material that requires careful analysis. We can guide you through the court process and help you develop a detailed plan to tackle the allegations. Early engagement is critical—contacting us as soon as possible gives us the time needed to start building a strong, well-prepared defence before your first court hearing.

Sentences for indecent image offences

Sentences for offences involving possession, making or distribution of indecent images of children can vary widely, ranging from medium-level community orders to substantial custodial sentences. The outcome in any given case is highly dependent on its individual facts, including the category of the images, the volume involved, and the period over which they were possessed or shared. 

This is why having a solicitor in your corner is so crucial. A well-prepared case can ensure that any mitigating factors are presented to the court in a compelling and sensitive manner. Mitigating factors can include, evidence of your positive character, any steps you have taken to address offending behaviour (such as attending counselling or rehabilitation programmes), or any challenging personal circumstances you were going through at the time of the offending. Properly highlighting these factors could make the difference between a custodial sentence and one that allows you to remain in the community.

Recent cases

Jacqui Callan represented a postal worker accused of possessing indecent images of children, the Prosecution sought to take the case to Court. The case centred on claims that the file names contained wording which, according to the Prosecution, would have made it obvious that the files held illegal content. Jacqui undertook a meticulous review of the case papers and was able to identify the specific issues that needed to be challenged. She then posed carefully framed questions to a forensic expert, whose expert analysis concluded that no reasonable user would have identified or interpreted the file paths in the way the Prosecution alleged. The Prosecution also attempted to rely on certain internet search terms as evidence of intent, but again, Jacqui’s targeted questioning allowed the expert to provide a clear and accurate interpretation, showing that the searches did not indicate an attempt to find illegal material. Thanks to Jacqui’s thorough preparation and strategic use of expert evidence, the case was ultimately dropped before reaching trial.

Megan Delaney was instructed by a business professional accused of possessing indecent images. The client firmly denied the allegations, explaining that he believed he had been the victim of hacking. Megan represented him during his police interview, where he clearly and confidently set out his defence. Following the interview, Megan worked closely with the client to gather supporting material, including evidence showing that the systems he used for work left him vulnerable to third-party access and that his professional accounts had, in fact, been accessed by unknown users. Megan then prepared detailed pre-charge engagement representations, submitting this evidence to the police and identifying specific lines of enquiry for the police’s digital expert to pursue – ensuring the client’s defence was properly investigated. After considering the material and following Megan’s proposed enquiries, the police accepted the credibility of the defence and confirmed that no further action would be taken against the client without the case having to go to Court.