Child Pornography in UK Law

In our judgment it is impossible to over-emphasise the importance to be attached to the ability of the media to report criminal trials. In simple terms this represents the embodiment of the principle of open justice in a free country. An important aspect of the public interest in the administration of criminal justice is that the identity of those convicted and sentenced for criminal offices should not be concealed.

It is sad, but true, that the criminal activities of a parent can bring misery, shame, and disadvantage to their innocent children. Innocent parents suffer from the criminal activities of their sons and daughters. Husbands and wives and partners all suffer in the same way. All this represents the further consequences of crime, adding to the list of its victims.

Evidence that a defendant collects or views child pornography is of course by itself evidence of the commission of a criminal offence. That offence is not itself one involving sexual assault or abuse or indeed of any sexual activity which is prohibited. It is obvious that it does not necessarily follow that a person who enjoys viewing such pictures will act out in real life the kind of activity which is depicted in them by abusing children.

It is true that the making of the images found appears to have been in 2008 or thereabouts and that that was some years after the two complainants had ceased to live with the defendant and thus when any offences could have been committed. But a sexual interest in young children is a characteristic which is unlikely to change over years.

As already indicated, however this question falls to be answered, the answer cannot avail Dr Atkins because the Magistrate found that in any event he was not conducting "honest and straightforward research into child pornography". We are nevertheless invited to consider the question so that courts may have some guidance on the point. Courts are plainly entitled to bring a measure of scepticism to bear upon such an enquiry: they should not too readily conclude that the defence has been made out.

This court rejected the submission of the Crown that those provisions were justified in case the defendant graduated to contact offences. Preventive these orders are; it does not follow that anything is permissible. It is not legitimate to impose multiple prohibitions on a defendant just in case he commits a different kind of offence. There must be an identifiable risk of contact offences before this kind of prohibition can be justified.

Of course, to be liable for a defamatory publication it is not always necessary to be aware of the defamatory content, still less of its legal significance. Editors and publishers are often fixed with responsibility notwithstanding such lack of knowledge. On the other hand, for a person to be held responsible there must be knowing involvement in the process of publication of the relevant words. It is not enough that a person merely plays a passive instrumental role in the process.