A poorly founded extreme porn charge, tenaciously pursued for many months by the Crown Prosecution Service, was dropped last week. The man was able to contact Backlash who put him in contact with expert legal advice on how to deal with the charge. He was able to vacate his guilty plea, which he had previously been mistakenly advised to plead in court. The CPS, though apparently willing to continue the case, refused to offer evidence at his trial at the last minute.
Jane Fae has more.
It is worth noting that the definitions of ‘extreme porn’ and of possession under section 63 are complex and contestable. Images must be realistic, pornographic (designed to arouse), grossly offensive AND contain specific prohibited content. In this case, a key defence might have been whether the image was designed to be pornographic or (instead) produced for shock value (essentially a sick joke). It should not be assumed that because an image is disgusting and offensive, that it is pornographic under the law. Even a decision by the CPS to press charges does not indicate that the images concerned necessarily fulfill the definition of ‘extreme pornography’. Anyone charged under similar circumstances, especially where the purpose or content of the images are ambiguous, is advised to contact Backlash.