Would you even know what material might be illegal?

Myles Jackman, Simon Walsh’s solicitor, reveals significant issues in the Guardian about a test case, ones it was not possible to tweet about during the trial itself.

“Like Simon, you could be sent a potentially illegal picture via email.

One which you never requested or opened, only to later find yourself in court, accused of being in possession of it.

While some defendants have hundreds of thousands of allegedly extreme or indecent images on their computers, Simon had five images of consensual adult sexual activity and a single unrequested picture unopened on his email server attached to an email containing a story about “Jason”.

Simon never requested this image and the prosecution were unable to prove Simon ever opened, viewed or knew it. In the story Jason was described as being in his mid twenties.

The prosecution described Jason as being 14 years old; the legal age of representation in pornography being 18.

Three defence experts viewed the image and stated in written reports that Jason was in his twenties. As a matter of legal procedure, the jury never heard this expert evidence. Instead they used their common sense and acquitted Simon.

People need to know how to modify their behaviour in accordance with the law, yet it is unclear what acts constitute “extreme pornography”.

Would you even know what material might be illegal? Have you been sent junk emails and not opened them? How much do you know about operating systems caching images attached to unopened emails?”

Posted in Events | Comments closed

Buck-passing to medical experts and juries

A decision to prosecute is not a medical matter, nor should the CPS be blithely leaving it “for a jury to decide”.

So argues David Allen Green in a powerful piece in the New Statesman questioning the CPS’ judgement in bringing the Walsh prosecution.

“The CPS instead has the important function of deciding if cases are properly arguable and in the public interest.

But, yet again, the CPS has prosecuted a case free from any notion of proportion, and without respect for a defendant’s privacy and dignity.

There are suggestions that the defendant’s previous work in prosecuting corrupt police officers may have something to do with why this case was ever brought. If so, that would be a horrific abuse of process. However, even if that s not relevant, this was still an inappropriate application of what was a bad law to begin with.

One definition of extreme pornography is that it portrays an image of something which would cause, or would be likely to cause, serious injury to a person.

But it is prosecutions like this which cause serious injury, both to respect for the law and our sense of living in a liberal society.”

Posted in Events | Comments closed

Clarifying confused and confusing legislation

An important article by legal academic Alex Dymock, clarifying the extent of what remains a confused and confusing piece of legislation, explains the background to the Walsh case.

Present throughout the case, she covers why it raises new and important questions about the legal status of possessing images of consenting adults engaging in kinky sex acts, even if the acts themselves are legal to practice.

This landmark case also indicates you could be prosecuted for images found in your email that you neither requested nor opened.

“In conclusion, the case of Walsh will raise serious concerns, not simply for anyone who partakes in and records “extreme” sexual activities, but also for anyone who uses online email.

It suggests that a single ill-advised click of the mouse could land you in court.

The inquiry and subsequent trial have caused utter devastation to Simon Walsh’s life and career.

When a case as flimsy as Walsh’s is taken by the CPS as far as Crown Court, it seems quite clear whom Section 63 aims to protect, and whom it aims to punish.”

Posted in Events | Comments closed

Jury refuses to criminalise a Magistrate for looking at fisting porn.

Former Boris Johnson fire aide has been acquitted of possession of “extreme pornography”.

A barrister charged with possession of extreme pornography depicting fisting and urethral sounding was acquitted today by a jury at Kingston Crown Court.

Simon Walsh, 50, is an Alderman of the City of London and a Magistrate. He was a Mayoral Appointee to the London Fire Authority until he was sacked last year after being charged with possession of extreme pornography under Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

In a victory for freedom of sexual expression Walsh was acquitted on all charges.

The images depicted sexual acts which are legal to perform between consenting adults. Whilst he admitted possessing the images of fisting and sounding; the jury were persuaded that these acts were not “extreme”.

In a legal first Walsh’s solicitor Myles Jackman of Hodge Jones & Allen LLP was given permission by the Judge to live tweet the trial. After the Trial he commented: ”This intrusive prosecution into the private sexual fantasies of consenting adults was brought with the DPP’s express consent. It took a jury to defend sexual freedoms by repelling the voyeur State from intruding on the privacy of an individual’s bedroom.”

A Backlash spokesperson commented: ”The CPS seems to be fixated with prosecuting representations of relatively common, private sexual acts between adult men. If lack of consent cannot be proven, are there really sufficient grounds to intervene?”

Notes to Editors:
1.      Backlash is an umbrella campaign providing academic campaigning and legal resources in the defence of freedom of sexual expression.

2.      Myles Jackman specialises in sexual obscenity cases and is the legal adviser to Backlash. His personal blog is here:

http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/
3.      Possession of extreme pornography was made an offence under section 63 CJIA 2008, here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/63
4.      The Backlash website is here:

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?page_id=7

For more information contact:

Myles Jackman, criminal defence solicitor:   07791 436100

Posted in Events | Comments closed

Both farcical and worrying

“Whatever the result at Kingston Crown Court, there remains on the statute book a dreadful piece of legislation and a CPS very ready to exercise its discretion to prosecute even when the images are of adult consensual sexual activity”.

“There is something both farcical and worrying in the way the state wishes to regulate mere possession of pornography in these circumstances.”

So says the noted legal correspondent of the New Statesman, responsible for “a critical and liberal look at law and policy”.

In An “extreme” prosecution? he explains the offence in the infamous “Tiger porn” case is being used again.

“The campaign group Backlash has now intervened in a number of other misconveived and illiberal prosecutions, and Myles Jackman has managed to prevent a number of miscarriages of justice. Myles continues to be a credit to the legal profession for his work in this area. But it should not come down to a pressure group and a fine lawyer to stop the bad application of a bad law.”

“It is in the public interest to consider the merits of the law itself, whatever is decided in this particular case. The “extreme pornography” offence is perhaps the most illiberal piece of legislation ever enacted by Parliament. It was promoted by a Labour government with the support of the then Conservative opposition. The offence has not had a happy history.”

Posted in Events | Comments closed

A censored isle set in a sinful sea

Officialdom’s attitude to freedom of sexual expression & the chequered history of the Obscene Publications Act is wittily summarised in the New Statesman by Heresiarch, @Heresy_Corner on Twitter.

The image of Canute vainly trying to hold back the inflowing sea resonates strongly because that is the way in which authorities in this country have always behaved in official attempts to to stem the tide of erotic literature and film.

Not that long ago copies of Madame Bovary and even Moll Flanders were burned on the orders of overzealous local magistrates.

The British Board of Film Classification conducts regular surveys to check that its guidelines bear at least an approximate relationship to popular taste, and usually discovers that adults are less horrified by depictions of sex and nudity than they expected.

An entertaining & informative read.

Posted in Events | Comments closed

This time it’s extreme

This week Kingston-on-Thames Crown Court will hear a potentially important test case regarding freedom of sexual expression.

Simon Walsh is facing several charges of possession of ‘extreme pornography’ under Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

The case is significant because it centres on images of adults engaging in alternative sexual activities that have been alleged to be harmful.

The defendant is represented by solicitor Myles Jackman, who also advises Backlash on legal matters. More details of the case are available at his blog, ObscenityLawyer.

Those interested in live updates of the trial should follow @backlashuk on Twitter who will link to live tweeters during the week. The hash-tag is #porntrial

 

Posted in Events | Comments closed

Expert witness evidence by Dr Clarissa Smith

Example of expert witness evidence by Dr Clarissa Smith at an extreme images trial in 2011. Unless a paragraph is prefaced by another identified person, all the points made are hers.

The CPS insisted all copies of the images be destroyed at the end of this trial, so it is not possible to depict them here. However that does not matter for the purpose of demonstrating the kind of points that need to be addressed when assesing an image.

The defence counsel started by asking a series of questions which flagged Dr Smith’s expertise to the jury, eg you have a Doctorate and are a senior lecturer at the Centre for Research in Media & Cultural Studies at the University of Sunderland. Many years an academic, with special expertise in pornography.

The predominantly female Jury were smiling during this introduction, possibly having got used to the idea that there were sensible female academics specialising in sex, from Professor Feona Attwood’s evidence immediately before. Then

I agree this material is pornography. It is a niche. Necro porn. Is also termed Damsel in Distress, or Attack Fetish.

You need to know where to find it.

It is credited to Drop Dead Gorgeous. This is a small organisation. The director and producer is probably Lissa Noble, a model who specialises in femme fatale roles.

Lissa Noble is the Domme. She models, takes the pictures, and does the marketing. Fan sites credit her as a specialist, known for high glamour, camp, humour and irony.

Their fanbase says particular models are favoured. This model plays ‘dead’ in very particular ways. I think she is called Nikki Steele.

These images are thoroughly stylised, incredibly posed. There are various props and elements of the mise en scene designed to tell a story quickly.

The Domme is stereotypical. The lighting, the posing – none is natural. There is fierce burnout from the lighting on the bodies, which look plastic, posed. They are digital – why did they not use a DVcam ? The image is static. Why ? For the pleasure of the stylising.

Count 4 (naked in a bath) is obviously posed. You can see the face clearly, even under a plastic bag. It is not meant to be a documentary. Look how the bodies are posed – she is not really struggling, holding the hand of her attacker, not fending him off.

There are between 30 to 100 images in each set. They cost about 6 dollars a set.

They are not hardcore. There is no penetration, no overtly sexual acts. They are very tame.

These actually come as sets because the narrative matters. They don’t take stills from a film

Prosecution counsel cross examines. The ‘bath’ set. You say the narrative matters. But it creates an impression of death.

That argument can be made, but the fans are interested in the idea of helplessness, not death.

There is a real problem with the appearance of realism. Take the towel on the bath edge, that is clearly there for her comfort. Look at the hand against the face, that is not a stuggle. The lighting is fierce to expose the body, not death. But the narratives all end in death.

The expression of horror and surprise is important. Fans are not looking for realism. The horror is a camp style. There is no intention of seeing scenes of actual suffering.

The average western shows a greater threat to life. Even UK soaps are more realistic.

Look at Nikki Steele. She has a classic ‘dead body’ pose. And wide eyed horror.

The Judge queries: You are saying it is important to take the sets into account. To see this like a strip cartoon with actors. They have the same exaggerated elements like a cartoon.

Yes. That militates against their being realistic.

Belief is hard to sustain. There’s no energy, one stabbing.

The Judge: You are saying there are obvious clues to suggest this is not real.

Posted in Events | Comments closed

Expert witness evidence by Professor Feona Attwood

Example expert witness evidence by Professor Feona Attwood at an extreme images trial in 2011. Unless a paragraph is prefaced by another identified person, all the points made are hers.

The CPS insisted all copies of the images be destroyed at the end of this trial, so it is not possible to depict them here. However that does not matter for the purpose of demonstrating the kind of points that need to be addressed when assesing an image.

The defence counsel started by asking a series of questions which flagged her expertise to the jury, eg you are the professor of sex, communication and culture at Sheffield Hallam University, 13 years an academic, author of many articles, etc.

Prof Attwood was handed a witness “bundle” (documents & pictures, which the jury already had; as a witness, she had been excluded from the court up until now). Defence counsel checked that she had examined them previously on secure police premises, and asked for her overview.

They are intended for several purposes. They are not like most pornography.

They focus on a narrative about a victim, using knives, strangulation, suffocation, etc.

They could be characterised as ‘death fetish’. It is not particularly common. Extremely specialised.

They have a distinctive style, a slightly different aesthetic to most pornography. Tell a story by static snapshots, freeze frames. They are particularly striking, remind one of a Hammer horror film. Very stagey, big expressions.

They were produced recently but with 1970?s type imagery.

Their features are an artificial style, a predictable narrative, acting, big gestures.

The characters are exaggerated, very made up, clearly staged sets.

Count 1 is S&M play; the victim is chained to a frame then threatened with a knife …

The Judge intervened – This depiction uses a knife, but does not show an actual wound.

Counts 2 & 3 (very similar images) are in a domestic setting, with the victim wrapped in (polka dot) cling film, knife at breast.

Count 4 depicts a bath, with the female victim being held down in a very artificial tableau, designed to imply she is being suffocated and drowned yet displaying vagina prominently; the most overtly sexual image.

All the images follow a pattern. Realism is not necessary in this aesthetic. It is set up one way and turns into an attack.

These images are on specialist websites, clearly signposted as fantasy images leading to death. They give warnings.

They follow conventions. The setting, lighting, story. They are acting out a scenario with a familiar plot.

They say clearly that they are staged. Choreographed, very clearly acted out scenes. Almost exaggerated. There is nothing to indicate these scenes are to be seen as real

Take Count 1. It is static. If a drama one would introduce a more realistic impression, more sense of movement. This is a messy encounter, but a deliberately held static pose. It is clearly staged. The actress is supporting her weight when unconscious. It is deliberately bad acting. It often expresses hammy conventions.

The victim performs an act of distress. In a tv drama it would not look like that. Poses are held and overplayed.

In 2, the pose is artificial, the facial expression unconvincing. It has a static quality, the knife is being held in place, not thrust in.

In 3, there is a sense of the camera being carefully positioned for maximum exposure. The facial expression is artificial. The knife is obviously not real. The wound is not realistic.

If it were real it would look very different.

Judge (turning to jury) But it is for the jury to consider what amounts to “realistic”.

The text here is that to be more realistic the expression would be more violent, the blood messier, more disturbing. The conventions of the same elements – binding, knife, blood, positions – they are saying “this is not realistic”.

In 4, the positioning shows how this is carefully staged. The attacker adopts a very awkward pose, so as not to block the view. It is not physically possible to hold her down to get a good view of the victim’s face.

Everything shows these are artificial, rehearsed. There’s no scuffle, no real exertion, no messiness. All the images are clean, make up, hair, is perfect. No conventional sex. Nothing is knocked over. All is pristine, artificial, in a very violent moment, which is part of the convention.

Defence counsel – they are not just bad, they are deliberately bad ?

It would be easy to make them more realistic. Introduce more movement, more mess, distress. The acting could be more real.

These conventions are not mistakes.

Prosecution counsel cross examines. You have over a decade’s experience and have had to view a lot of these images, so for you these are not uncommon. There is no shock value. This is your field. You term it Death Fetish.

Yes. There are signposts. You have prior knowledge. I can’t say which website they came from but they are produced by Drop Dead Gorgeous.

Prosecution counsel says the longer one looks, the more information there is to process. You say they are unreal because of your background, and because you looked at them for a long time.

I think the conventions I’ve interpreted are everyday skills. My students arrive already knowing how to do this, it is not a specialist skill.

Prosecution counsel says of Count 2 – there appears to be blood, and a knife pressing into a breast.

If one wanted to make that realistic one could do it, but it would not look like this. The producer has chosen not to make it realistic.

They relay fantasy. They are an enactment. They are like cowboys and indians, not like death. The story line follows fantasy conventions.

The Judge queries: So they are not only staged, but deliberately portrayed as staged ?

Yes. They have gone to a lot of trouble to make them contrived.

Posted in Events | Comments closed

A Judge’s summing up

This is a precis of key points contained in a Crown Court Judge’s summing up at a trial for the possession of extreme images in January 2011. The Jury found the defendant Not Guilty.

Parliament recently decided to outlaw extreme pornographic images.

This is not about rights and wrongs. Leave emotions at home. Apply the law to the facts.

The prosecution needs to make you sure of guilt. It you are not sure, the verdict is Not Guilty.

There are 4 counts. Each charge needs to be judged separately. It is open to you to make different decisions on each count.

What ingredients of the prosecution make you sure ?

I have prepared a written Route to Verdicts (below), which I ask the usher to give you and the lawyers, who have agreed what I have written

A difficulty is that Parliament used ordinary language for legal definitions.

On a scale of porn, clearly more hardcore material exists. But that fact is not at issue.

It is Step 3, the issue of “realistic”, that may give rise to difficulty

It is for you alone to come to a conclusion as to whether these images are realistic.

You may have thought before this trial that that is straightforward.

Of course it isn’t that simple.

Pain, fake blood, apparent struggle. They could be more realistic, further along on a scale of realism.

There are elements that are less realistic. High camp acting, the lighting, body positions – especially count 4 where the body is positioned to expose the vagina.

These images could have been done differently to make them look more realistic

but

what matters is do you consider these realistic. If you do not, that is the end of the matter.

Then, you need to be satisfied they are grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene. You need to be sure.

No one else’s opinion matters. You must use your judgement.

Now we turn to the evidence you have heard.

Two experts were called. There is no magic in expert evidence. It is for you to consider their opinions (here the Judge explained that only experts are allowed to provide opinions – in their areas of expertise – as opposed to just evidence, and for the benefit of the court not the prosecution or defence).

Professor Attwood characterised the narratives as death fetish. Very specialised. Uses stagey conventions, an artificial style, a predictable narrative. Overtly staged, acting out, choregraphed, deliberately exagerated. No attempt at realism.

But remember, the question is whether you are satisfied.

Dr Smith characterised the images as necro porn, or Damsel in Distress. She identified the producer as Drop Dead Gorgeous. She named the models. The images are knowingly high camp. There is humour and glamour. They are stylised. They cost 6 dollars. The stories are more than death, they are about helplessness, horror, surprise.

You did not hear from the defendant. He is of previously good character. As a man of good character he is entitled to suggest he is less likely to be guilty as he has not offended before. He is not young. He has not come to police attention before or since. He has the choice to remain silent.

It means we have no oral evidence, but he admits possession. You might conclude in these circumstances it is reasonable for the defence to think it is irrelevant what the defendant thinks.

Strive to reach a unanimous verdict. Appoint a foreman to give your verdict when you return – who needn’t be the same person who chairs your discussion.

The judge then gave guidance about smoking; no discussion when separated for a smoking break, and jury bailiffs monitor.

Unanimous Not Guilty verdicts on all 4 counts. Jury members 8F 4M. Jury retired 11.20, returned 13.00

Prosecutor then asked Judge to comment on Test Case issue. Judge responded:

I make no criticism of the Prosecution. This was a test case. The legislation put the onus on the Jury. Their interpretation will vary. It is very difficult for the Crown to have any idea of the boundaries until there is guidance and feedback from Jury verdicts.

This is new legislation that is currently being interpreted. We have to decide where is the line in the sand.

The Judge thanked the jury and discharged them.

Route to Verdicts

Part 1 Have the prosecution proved the image is pornographic ?

Question 1

Are we sure the Image is a pornographic image ?

It is pornographic if it is reasonably assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal.

(note: it is accepted that the images are pornographic)

If NO verdict is “not guilty” if YES go to question 2

Part 2 Have the prosecution proved that the image is extreme ?

Question 2

Are we sure that a reasonable person looking at the images would think that the person (rather than the scene) was real ?

(it is accepted the people are real and appear to be real people)

If NO verdict is “not guilty” if YES go to question 3

Question 3

Re Counts 1,2 and 3. Are we sure that the image portrays in an explicit and realistic way an act resulting or likely to result in serious injury to a person’s breast ?

Re Count 4. Are we sure that the image portrays in an explicit and realistic way an act which threatens a person’s life ?

(the defence contend the prosecution have not proved the images are realistic)

If NO verdict is “not guilty” if YES go to question 4

Are we sure that the image is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character ?

(the defence contend that the prosecution have not proved this element)

If NO verdict is “not guilty” if YES to question 1, 2, 3 and 4 verdict is “guilty”.

Posted in Events | Comments closed
  • Backlash is an umbrella organisation providing academic, legal and campaigning resources defending freedom of sexual expression. We support the rights of adults to participate in all consensual sexual activities and to watch, read and create any fictional interpretation of such in any media.