R v Bateman  [2020] EWCA Crim 1333. 

The primary issue in this case relates to the distinction between "possession" and "production" within the Sentencing Council Definitive Guidelines on Sexual Assault (possession of indecent photographs of a child).

The Court of appeal, drew the following conclusions from the guidelines:

1. The mere downloading without more amounts to possession;
2. The taking of an image at source (for example the original image) is producing or creating that image;
3. Because of the word “include” in the explanatory note in the Guidelines the description is is not a definitive statement of the circumstances when an image is produced or created;
4. The divide between possession and production/creation is not fixed in stone and the concepts are not mutually exclusive; common sense indicates that an image might start as a merely downloaded copy (and be possessed) but then be produced into something altogether different and more offensive. There are in real life innumerable permutations.

Dino Massivi & Jennifer Hodge [2020] EWCA Crim 34

Criminal solicitors in London and nationwide, should be aware of the case of Dino Massivi & Jennifer Hodge [2020] EWCA Crim 34.

The absence of sexual gratification or sexual interest in the content of the images, is not a basis for treating a distribution of indecent images offence to a possession of indecent images.

More on indecent images soon.