Hi Taf,

I am sorry to hear your news. I do not think things are very different in the U.K. than here in terms of what material is dangerous to possess, and for a minor-attracted individual it is far inside the boundary of what most of "straight" society consider to be "child pornography". I subscribe to a parenting magazine; I am hesitant to keep it after I've read the current issue.

I have done extensive research on SOT and SOR issues over the past few months developing my web-site, and have information on techniques and court precedent (U.S., but underlying arguments are pertinent) on cases involving a presumed-adolescent in a visual image. There is substantial testimony from endocrinologists, who are specialists in growth and development as well, that it is not possible to certainly ascertain the age of an 18 y.o. as compared to someone under that age who has reached "maturation of secondary sexual characteristics".

I can point out access to that information; it may be useful in an initial Motion to Dismiss based on lack of probable cause to believe that the material depicts a minor. Evidence of the website that the material originated from would be helpful; I would include in your discovery request, a specific request that the forensic investigator evaluating the pictures also identify any embedded information contained in the graphic file, such as dates the image was taken, watermarks, camera ID's or make or model, etc.

I would seek help in obtaining a legal image from that website, and particularly from around the time the images were "spammed" to you, perhaps from someone in the Netherlands where the images are likely not of questionable legality, and see what information can be pulled from the image file; or at least, perhaps your attorney or someone else can obtain the "over 18" disclaimer on that website and (hopefully) the seized images contain that website address.

I would file for discovery immediately.

I think you are right to fight it. I understand the sentencing implications of that action for you somewhat.

I would exercise my right to a jury trial if that is allowed. I would be certain the three images are shown to the jury, and I would present a motion to exclude any other images or material that was seized during the pre-trial proceedings, and I would document the hell out of why allowing the Crown to do so would be prejudicial with extensive case citation.

I would seek to exclude evidence of your prior conviction being admitted into the trial as being prejudicial to the current case. If the prosecution attempts to make arguments with respect to establishing your "intent" in possessing the images, I can assist with relevant information.

If you are not adequately represented and will be doing some of the legal research and preparation yourself, contact me. Perhaps I can help.

I do not know if the same is true in the U.K., but here "child pornography" can be considered adults who impersonate children. For example, the "Barely Legal" types of material are sold in liquor stores, and a brief look at the cover indicates that they are illegal to possess in the U.S.; however, few prosecutors are interested in presenting such a case against an arguably heterosexual adult. I would certainly not own such material as a minor attracted individual.

I hope your sons are okay with all that is going on in your life. They are in my prayers.

So my thoughts, at least initially: file your motion for discovery, including forensic evidence; and begin preparing your motions to suppress your past conviction and the other material seized along with the alleged illegal images.

I would begin thinking about changing the venue the trial is conducted in if it makes the newspapers, to somewhere the jury pool will not be tainted. I would probably seek a higher court than the current jurisdiction if you are able, as a more experienced magistrate is also more likely to evaluate the facts of the case objectively, particularly if you pursue a bench trial. My thought is that an average jury, seeing images that are clearly of adults, would be less likely to convict.

Sincerely,

Kevin Brown