The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

"Extreme porn" defendant cleared on all counts

The CPS has "serious questions to answer" over the prosecution, says David Allen Green.

By New Statesman Published 08 August 2012 14:30
Kingston Crown Court. Photograph: Getty Images
Kingston Crown Court. Photograph: Getty Images

A man who was tried this week in Kingston Crown Court for possessing images of "extreme" sexual acts has just been cleared on all counts. Simon Walsh was tried under "extreme pornography" laws (part of a wider 2008 bill) in a trial before a jury. 

As Nelson Jones wrote:

Walsh [was] charged with several counts of possessing extreme pornography under the notorious s63 of the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. This makes it illegal to possess (and looking at something on a website technically counts as possession) any pornographic image depicting animals, dead bodies or "an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals."

Myles Jackman, the lawyer defending Walsh, had posted this background to the case:

Before being arrested and charged with these offences, Simon was a successful professional and politician in the City who, amongst other things, prosecuted police officers accused of disciplinary offences. After being charged, Simon lost both professional and political positions, despite the fact that no pornography was found on any of his work computers.

In fact, no pornography was found on Simon's home computers either. Instead, the police had to “interrogate” Simon's personal email account (server) in order to discover a few images they deemed questionable. This included an image of a man wearing a gas mask. Their expert stated that this was likely to cause serious harm, even death by asphyxiation: despite being a piece of equipment designed to assist breathing. This charge was eventually dropped.

Following the result of the trial, David Allen Green, solicitor and legal correspondent for the New Statesman, said:

"This was a shameful and intrusive prosecution which should never have been brought. It was bad law to begin with, but a good man has had his sex life examined in open court for no good reason. There are serious questions for the CPS to answer about bringing this prosecution."

For background on the case, read NS blogger Nelson Jones here (includes graphic sexual descriptions). For more on the "extreme pornography" law, see David Allen Green's post on Jack of Kent.

More follows . . .

 
 

8 comments

Terry7's picture

Wed, 2012-08-08 17:35 — Terry7

Another dreadful and overly intrusive piece of law-making by Labour/New Labour. Bad law is sometimes worse than no law, especially if the effect is to restrict the law-abiding when offenders just ognore it and get off scott free, or if it is simply unworkable. That breeds disrespect for the law in general.

All Labour did was pass thousands of pieces of new legislation. A truly dreadful government and decidedly anti-freedom. Strange when at the same time as restricting rights and freedoms for some they were busy telling kids they had a right to everything and could do whatever they want because adults had been made afraid and powerless to act, and allowed some of the worst elements of society far too much leeway.

There ought to be a bi-partisan commission of some kind set up, to sit regardless of elections, to go through every law in the land and either annul all those laws that are either no longer used or valid or deemed unworkable, and/or amalgamate those that are good AND workable in the simplest form within existing legislation wherever possible.

I happen to believe that nobody should be named in any prosecution unless and until they have had the opportunity to be tried by a jury of their peers in a court of law AND found guilty. Only then should they be named. This should be upheld universally, however wicked the crime and potentially unpleasant the defendent, as a fundamental principle. How many people's lives have been ruined despite being acquitted? It's wrong.

Des Demona's picture

Wed, 2012-08-08 16:12 — Des Demona (not verified)

I do wonder if this is one of those cases where the innocent should remain anonymous?

JeeBee's picture

Wed, 2012-08-08 15:25 — JeeBee (not verified)

"After being charged, Simon lost both professional and political positions"

So now that he has been found not guilty, what now? Does he get his job back? Does he get compensation for lost earnings? Can he sue the CPS for this abusive prosecution?

Mary C's picture

Wed, 2012-08-08 15:20 — Mary C (not verified)

Because this law is so far reaching in application, it is evidently very useful to use to attack a person's reputation or to gather information on their private life; something that could not be done supported by the real reasons, which would in most cases be political.

Gabble Gabble's picture

Wed, 2012-08-08 15:13 — Gabble Gabble (not verified)

Is it simply coincidence that he prosecuted dodgy coppers and in turn was victimised by the same institution?

Who watches the watchmen?

Andreas's picture

Wed, 2012-08-08 17:27 — Andreas (not verified)

Yeah, because the police are who decides whether or not a prosecution is in the public interest...oh, wait, no, that's the CPS. Two organisations who aren't linked, and generally hate each other's guts.

I wish people would stop taking the police as THE ENTIRE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

LittleTyke's picture

Thu, 2012-08-09 08:21 — LittleTyke (not verified)

I think the police nowadays believe they ARE the entire justice system.

Gabble Gabble's picture

Wed, 2012-08-08 18:43 — Gabble Gabble (not verified)

Hmmm...yeah!

The cps must have been the ones that got their man...

Entirely blameless police force wronged again...my apologies.

The police answer for all the balls ups...manslaughter, beatings, false evidence used to get an innocent man into court.

Yep I'm wrong sorry again

Latest tweets