No Freedom for Sexual Freedom…Dangerous Pictures Act lives on in government’s liberty-lite reforms

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from backlash-uk.org.uk

The Coalition’s Protection of Freedoms Bill published today shows up Liberal inability to make really extensive changes in rolling back Labour’s many new laws curtailing civil liberties. Sexual freedom of expression is evidently a freedom too far. Section 63 of the CJIA 2008, the so called extreme images law, will not be repealed. This despite it being in the top ten of Civil Liberties laws voted for repeal in the online consultation exercise in 2010, and opposed by Liberals in Parliament when originally enacted. Backlash research, to be made public shortly, will show that s63 offences are several hundred times higher than projected by the then government when the law, based merely on a hunch and moralistic shudder, was whipped through Parliament. Alexandra Dymock of Backlash, the sexual civil liberties organisation fighting a growing number of legal cases for incorrect prosecutions, said: Most lawyers don’t understand this law and advise their clients to plead guilty. Already there have been too many miscarriages of justice and ruined lives that result from this ill-conceived, insufficiently researched, ineptly written and incompetently prosecuted law. This law is a waste of valuable legal aid and police resources. It should be repealed. We will continue to lobby for repeal during the passage of this Bill.

Blunt Words…Dangerous Pictures Act has been ruled out from the Not So Great Repeals Bill

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to AllanB on the Melon Farmers Forum

AllanB has been pursuing with his MP the possibility of including the Dangerous Pictures Act in the government’s fading Great Repeals Bill A reply was received from Crispin Blunt who describes himself as Minister with responsibility for the criminal law. AllanB wrote: After a page or so describing what the DPA was all about, and how images had to meet several tests (explicit, realistic blah blah) before warranting prosecution this is the quote …as the offence is tightly drawn to apply to only the most extreme material we do not intend to propose this offence as a candidate for repeal. The justification for the offence remains the impact they may have on those who view them, although he doesn’t state what that impact is. Presumably they’ve embraced the Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) findings. This was a much influential ‘academic’ report written by anti porn activists. So if anyone is into further letter writing I would recommend challenging the REA. The last government was criticised by the parliamentary science and technology select committee for misusing scientific evidence to justify policy decisions which were actually based on ideological grounds. If ever there was engineered evidence the REA is it.

Extreme Persecution…Prosecution fails as single extreme image is lost

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

You’d think that having a single image on a computer would rather indicate an overall lack of interest in extreme porn. Not really what you would expect from someone the authorities consider as some sorted of pervert criminal. As always, shame on the reprehensible persecutors involved See article from theregister.co.uk by Jane Fae Ozimek

Newcastle magistrates have dropped a charge of possessing a single image of extreme porn – because local police and prosecution appear to have lost the evidence. A spokeswoman for the CPS told the Register: When we made the original decision [to charge], the image was provided to us on disc. The defence requested details of where the image was on the computer and when the computer was checked, the image was no longer there. In light of that, we felt we could no longer go ahead with the case.

Updated: Safeguarding the Decency of Society…First crown court trial for victim of the Dangerous Pictures Act

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to emark See article from thisisstaffordshire.co.uk

A man is on trial for downloading sexually violent porn images known to be staged. He is being prosecuted under laws banning the possession of extreme pornography. The charges follow a police raid on Kevin Webster’s home and the seizure of his two computers in August 2009. Webster denies three charges of possessing extreme pornography depicting images likely to result in injury to a person’s breast and one similar charge depicting an act which threatens a person’s life. Darron Whitehead prosecuting said: This defendant accepts he viewed and downloaded and saved those images. We know the images were fake. The question is whether it is realistic or portrayed in that way. The intentions of the persons within those images are irrelevant. It is what is depicted in those images which is material. Why is there a need for this new legislation? There is a need to regulate images portraying sexual violence, to safeguard the decency of society and for the protection of women. Update: Not Guilty 7th January 2011. News of the acquittal reaches Nu Labour HQ (picture thanks to MichaelG) Kevin Webster has thankfully been acquitted of the possession of extreme porn images downloaded from Drop Dead Gorgeous featuring on the ‘infamous’ but popular NecroBabes website. He was advised in defence by Backlash, the group leading the campaign against this nasty piece of legilsation. The defence called two expert witnesses, Professor Feona Attwood of Sheffield Hallam University and Dr Clarissa Smith of the University of Sunderland. They are probably the leading academic authorities in the field, and together wrote the definitive study of how the new law came into being – Extreme Concern: Regulating ‘dangerous pictures’ in the UK [pdf]. In perhaps an important analogy that caught commentators attention, Attwood described the pictures, depicting a knife attack and a drowning in a bath, as like stills from a Hammer horror film of the 1970s, The importance of the verdict was well summed in an article from heresycorner.blogspot.com: The case represented an important test of s.63. For the first time (at least in a case of intentional downloading of sexual images) a defendant pleaded Not Guilty; and for the first time a case went before a jury. Previously, charges of possessing extreme porn have been uncontested. They have also tended to involve images of animal abuse, whose illegality is less controversial, or been charged alongside child porn offences. Here were pictures that were admittedly consensual and obviously staged, and yet appeared to fall within the definition of the Act. In many ways this was the case that campaigners against the law have been waiting for. The news came this afternoon that Webster has been cleared. Had he been convicted, it could well have opened the floodgates to many more such prosecutions. Will his acquittal have the opposite effect, and make the CPS think twice about their own definitions of extreme pornography? If this illiberal law (which seems unlikely to fall victim to Nick Clegg’s much-anticipated Freedom Bill, despite a vociferous campaign to have it repealed) has any justification, then it should be restricted to cases which appear to feature images of actual sexual violence and abuse. In other words, for realistic to be interpreted as meaning likely to be real. The vast majority of such material, even the most extreme, is however known to be staged. Some of the participants, indeed, are articulate advocates for their subculture. Several have their own blogs. While fans of the genre, as Clarissa Smith told the court, knew and recognised the regular performers who played dead for the camera. We are dealing with pure fantasy. It’s good to know ordinary members of a jury can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, even if the law and its enforcers decide that the distinction doesn’t matter.

A Sadistic Prosecution…BDSMer falls victim to dangerous pictures law

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Since when does: likely to be experiencing severe pain and risking injury meet the law criteria of likely to result, in serious injury. Risking injury doesn’t suggest that injury is likely and there seems no mention of the the required serious. Based on article from bournemouthecho.co.uk

A Dorset man has been sentenced after pleading guilty to 11 counts of possessing extreme pornography depicting pain being inflicted. Bournemouth Crown Court heard how David Hill had been arrested after police searched his mother’s home and another property in Christchurch. Prosecutor Desmond Duffy said two computers had been seized and examined by experts who found three movies and 26 still images featuring scenes of violence: When interviewed in January this year Mr Hill admitted downloading the material because he was participating in bondage acts, He accepted that what he had downloaded was extreme in nature, acknowledging participants were likely to be experiencing severe pain and risking injury as a result. Duffy added that Hill had wanted to assess if he felt able to participate in that kind of activity himself. Defending, Robert Gray said his client was a professional man of previous good character who had received treatment for his interest in this kind of material. The court heard how Hill had been suspended from his job, on full pay, pending the outcome of legal proceedings. Imposing a two-year community order and three-month curfew, Judge Samuel Wiggs told Hill: It is extremely sad that you should be in this court. You have substantial qualifications in the career which you follow. Hill was ordered to pay £1,350 prosecution costs. And a reminder of the law Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images … (7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following— (a) an act which threatens a person’s life, (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals, …

Extreme Persecution…Year long prosecution dropped for two bad taste jokey video clips

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from theregister.co.uk by Jane Fae Ozimek

A stunning reversal for police and prosecution in North Wales. A case, scheduled to be heard in Mold Crown Court, was the culmination of a year-long nightmare for Andrew Hollan as the CPS declined to offer any evidence, and he left court a free man. The saga began last summer when, following a tip-off, police raided Holland’s home looking for indecent images of children. They found none, but they did find two clips, one involving a woman purportedly having sex with a tiger, and one which is believed to have depicted sado-masochistic activity between adults. Despite Holland’s protests that he had no interest in the material, and that it had been sent to him unsolicited as a joke, he was charged with possessing extreme porn. In a first court appearance in January of this year, the tiger porn charge was dropped when prosecuting counsel discovered the volume control and at the end of the action heard the tiger turn to camera and say: That beats doing adverts for a living. The clip was therefore deemed to be unrealistic and out of scope as far as extreme porn legislation was concerned. The court then turned its attention to the allegedly more serious clip involving adult interaction which, it has been suggested, featured some seriously unpleasant application of sharp objects to genitals. Holland spoke to members of Consenting Adult Action Network and sexual rights organisation Backlash, and he ended up pleading not guilty. He was expected to call several expert witnesses who would have challenged the characterisation of the clip as pornographic, arguing instead that the content was intended to be a form of extremely bad taste joke and not sexual in nature. The CPS, however, declined to offer any evidence, and the matter is at an end. We spoke to Holland after the case and he declared himself very relieved. Due to the sexual nature of the case, he has been barred from contact with his daughter since the case began and he is now determined to re-establish contact. He told us: Now I can start to put my life back together. The CPS has not yet commented on this matter, or on the fact that on each charge, it was not until the day of the court appearance that it decided the evidence to hand was inadequate. …Read the full article And a reminder of the law Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image which is both— (a) pornographic, and (b) an extreme image. An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. … Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted— (a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions Short jokey bad taste porn clips are clearly produced for the purpose of amusement or even disgust but they are simply not produced for sexual arousal.DPP Keir Starmer should be ashamed of his persecution of an innocent man.

Some Good, Some Bad…Scottish extreme porn ban approved, prostitution restrictions rejected

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to ste

MSPs have been discussing law reforms defined in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. The Scottish Parliament has passed its extreme porn laws. No surprise there. But on the other hand, the Parliament actually did a decent job of rejecting a bunch of other stupid laws. Sandra White’s lap dancing regime got rejected (only the SNP supported it), and attempts to ban all prostitution, and also to introduce the English strict liability offence for using ‘controlled’ prostitutes were both rejected (only Labour supported them). So some bad, but some good also. Interestingly, the Police (particularly in the form of ACPOS) were fairly pivotal in providing cover for rejecting the prostitution laws. They basically said they didn’t want or need them, and that they might well make things worse, which made it a lot easier for the parties to reject them.

Extreme Injustice…Extreme porn ban set to become law in Scotland

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from news.bbc.co.uk

MSPs are poised to pass nasty law reforms defined by the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. The legislation brings in a number of new criminal offences, including specific action to tackle stalking, people forced into slavery or servitude and possession of extreme pornography. The bill also aims to  widen the powers of licensing boards and standards officers. MSPs will also vote on an amendment brought forward by SNP backbencher Sandra White MSP on greater restrictions for lap dancing clubs.

A Cache of Dangerous Pictures…Dangerous porn victim cleared over pictures found in browser cache

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from theregister.co.uk by Jane Fae Ozimek

A man’s got to know his technical limitations Former stand-up comic Michael Silk was charged with six offences of possessing extreme porn featuring dodgy goings-on between humans and animals. Silk denied the charges which, it was alleged, had been committed in May 2009. For the prosecution, Kent Online reports, Alex Wilson told the judge at Maidstone Crown Court last Tuesday that, following discussions with an expert, he would offer no further evidence as he believed there was no realistic prospect of conviction. The judge entered formal not guilty verdicts. A CPS spokesperson told us: It was also apparent from the evidence that the defendant was not computer literate. At the time the defendant’s computer was seized the material was held in the computer’s internet cache. There was no evidence that the defendant had saved the images or sought to keep them. In order to ‘possess’ the images in that state the law requires knowledge that the images exist and the means or know-how to retrieve them. The defendant was in possession of the images at the point in time that he accessed them and viewed them. On the evidence available in this case it was not possible to prove that he did so at some time after the Act came into force. We could not therefore proceed with the prosecution and we accordingly offered no evidence. Simply deleting an image will not save you if you are computer literate enough to retrieve it. Contrariwise, it appears that if you are a total computer illiterate, that might be enough to get you out of a fix. …Read the full article Comment: Punishing the Not Guilty From Harvey Yet again we find a person charged and hauled into court only to find the prosecution offer no evidence. NO EVIDENCE. I wish judges would be more condemning of prosecutors for bringing charges before looking to check that the evidence stacks up as it seems to be happening more frequently. And the CPS fuckwits who do decide to prosecute should be named so we can see who they are and whether they are just dumb or are serial offenders. No surprise that this was, yet again, Kent police and prosecutors, who have form when it comes to “enhancing” the evidence, prosecuting first and asking questions later.

Law Against Bad Taste Jokes…Tiger Porn defendant miscarriage of justice averted

Read more Legislating Extreme Porn at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from backlash-uk.org.uk

About to be fucked by a tiger The sexual civil liberties organisation Backlash have assisted in averting a miscarriage of justice. Andrew Holland was charged with one count of possessing extreme pornography under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 at the Mold Crown Court. He stood to be sentenced for the offence, having pleaded guilty mid trial under advice from his local legal team in Wrexham. Backlash contacted Holland to offer advice to discover that he may have been misadvised by his local legal team; and that he did in fact have a defence to the charge. Backlash provided funds for provisional legal advice and research to be performed. We put Holland in contact with our legal adviser, who is a solicitor specialising in extreme pornography offences, Myles Jackman of Audu and Co in King’s Cross, London. Holland transferred representation to the specialist solicitors and was given leave on Friday the 28th May 2010 by His Honour Judge Rogers sitting at the Mold Crown Court to vacate his plea from Guilty back to Not Guilty. That means that he will stand trial again; this time in the knowledge that he has a defence. However, had he not contacted Backlash in the first place he would have been sentenced for an offence which he may have been misadvised that he did not have a defence for. Holland’s case gained notoriety as he had previously been charged with a second, separate extreme pornography charge relating to a video clip purportedly depicting a sexual act between a human and a tiger. This charge was withdrawn when it was discovered that the prosecutor had failed to listen to the video’s soundtrack, whererin one of the actors made a comment about Tony the Tiger from the Frosties commercials, proving the video was an elaborate joke and the tiger was not real; leaving the prosecution deeply embarrassed. [And of course the Director of Public Prosecutions, who personally approved the prosecution] Myles Jackman commented that: it is ridiculous and dangerous that the CPS are trying to criminalise the posession of dirty jokes.