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 . . .
Content from our partners
Related
