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.