No prison after child porn case (From Cotswold Journal)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting EJ NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
No prison after child porn case
1:00pm Sunday 19th August 2012 in Cotswolds
A 46-YEAR-OLD man found with indecent images of children on his computer has been spared a jail sentence.
Judge Robert Juckes QC said although the offence passed the custody threshhold, Simon Josse now recognised the seriousness of the crime. He imposed a threeyear community order on Josse, of Eckington Road, Bredon, after he pleaded guilty to five charges of possessing indecent images.
Josse is now registered as a sex offender for five years and was ordered to pay £600.
Prosecutor Paul Whitfield told Worcester Crown Court that Josse’s home was raided and investigators found 134 indecent images in March last year.
There were none at the highest level and 123 were at the lowest level of seriousness.
There had been no download for five years.
Jason Aris, defending, said Josse did not deliberately seek indecent material but suggested some had been acquired by accident when enquiring on a cookery site.
The judge refused an application for the computer to be forfeited but ordered that the hard drive be confiscated.
Comments(10)
jb
says...
9:44pm Sun 19 Aug 12
That's the computer that had downloads on that were five years old then, someone convicted of possessing these images hasn't downloaded ANY for five years? Leopard and spots comes to mind. When an offence passes the custodial threshold it should be enforced, no question.
Peterday
says...
11:45pm Sun 19 Aug 12
katiekins
says...
8:39am Tue 21 Aug 12
Peterday
says...
10:44am Tue 21 Aug 12
Flomay
says...
12:33pm Tue 21 Aug 12
Peterday wrote:how can you say the pictures are harmless? someones child posed for the pictures in the first place and will proberly be encouraged to pose for more! Anyone who gets pleasure out of such pictures is sick in the head and should be locked up before they resort to actual pysical abuse of children!!! grrrrrr makes my blood boil ...
Katiekins. The difference between a high risk picture and a low risk picture is none at all. All pictures are harmless, they can’t hurt you. In your video collection, for your entertainment, you may have scenes of murder or other horrible crimes taking place. It is not a crime to possess such pictures because although they depict crime, the picture is not the crime and it would be absurd to suggest you were a sadist and should be locked up for viewing such.
katiekins
says...
1:28pm Tue 21 Aug 12
Flomay wrote:thank you flomay i totaly agree with you............
Peterday wrote:how can you say the pictures are harmless? someones child posed for the pictures in the first place and will proberly be encouraged to pose for more! Anyone who gets pleasure out of such pictures is sick in the head and should be locked up before they resort to actual pysical abuse of children!!! grrrrrr makes my blood boil ...
Katiekins. The difference between a high risk picture and a low risk picture is none at all. All pictures are harmless, they can’t hurt you. In your video collection, for your entertainment, you may have scenes of murder or other horrible crimes taking place. It is not a crime to possess such pictures because although they depict crime, the picture is not the crime and it would be absurd to suggest you were a sadist and should be locked up for viewing such.
Peterday
says...
6:02pm Tue 21 Aug 12
katiekins
says...
9:39pm Tue 21 Aug 12
Simon_J
says...
9:51pm Thu 13 Sep 12
Perhaps there was no possession of images after all (Fact). Perhaps there was no threat of a jail sentence (Fact). Do you really think that a news paper would want to sex up a story irrespective of the facts? Surely not. As they say, lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story. Perhaps there is another story, the truth, not featured in this news paper.
worcswolf says...
8:44pm Sun 19 Aug 12