How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jo C. Your Own Question
Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 70513
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice
12826847
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

Definition of a Cat C image. Is a category C image the same definition as the old level 1?

Customer Question

Definition of a Cat C image. Is a category C image the same definition as the old level 1? Would an 'up skirt' image of a child really be considered indecent? Considering the objective view, which means that images should be viewed without context means that it literally is a picture of underwear.
Would this really satisfy a cat c charge?
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Hi.
Thank you for your question. My name is ***** ***** I will try to help with this.
-Could you explain your situation a little more?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Of course, as a result of a false accusation, I have ended up with 10 charges.A disgruntled staff member accused me of having indecent images on my phone (which is admitted by all as being shared use). A member of staff warned me that this member of staff had put "dodgy" images on my phone. I then erased the phone in panic mode. The police were unable to recover these images (if they existed?), but have charged me with making a number of cat c images.They seized all of my computer equipment from the past 10 years at this point. On inspection of a laptop last used 6 years ago, they recovered 2 indecent images. No actual evidence of viewing for either. No indicative file names either. I was however charged with making 2 images (a and b).They then supposedly found on my work computer (which this same staff member has access to using guest mode), on the guest profile, there were supposedly 5 cat c images.Finally, on a tablet, there was a video, which in all honesty, was filmed accidentally whilst holding my tablet under the table during a tutoring session (I use the camera to evidence work and progress and obviously hit film without realised, the way I hold my phone on its side, it simply points the camera towards where the child was sitting). I have seen the video in interview and you can literally see the girls underwear. There is of course no posing, nothing at all sexual about it in anyway.As I hope you can see, they have literally charged me for anything and everything they can get their hands on! My question relates to the movie under the table. Is it realistic to think a judge could dismiss this on the basis of it not possibly being indecent?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
You are not proposing to plead guilty to this?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Absolutely not!
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Why is that what you would have recommended? I couldn't plead guilty to something I hadn't done.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
No.
The issue isn't really whether you have done it anyway. The issue is what they can prove. Images on a phone that is accessed by several people is the weakest evidence imaginable.
On your specific point above, it depends. Whether it is 'indecent' depends upon the image and the view of the jury. Certainly it is very low level as it could be an innocent image. It depends on context and the nature of the image. I think if that were the only image and it is a borderline one then probably it would lead to a decision that it does not offend. But it is variable. It depends on the jury, the location in the country etc.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Jo
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
What I mean is, can an application not be made to exclude that evidence on the basis that it is clearly not indecent (R v Oliver)?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Sorry I meant to clarify on the video. It is literally as described. Child sitting in chair next to mine, camera captures underwear as she is working, as I have realised camera is on, I turn it off.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Yes, Oliver still applies and there could be an application but it won't work here. There is a case to put before the Jury. It isn't the type of thing that cannot be indecent.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
So my final question is, if Oliver still applies, how can this be considered possibly indecent?In R v Miles (2015), it was made clear that an application could be put forward to the trial judge that the image could be defined "not possibly indecent" as a matter of law.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Because it is capable of being indecent.
In relation to Miles, as I said, that could be made but it wouldn't work here because this is capable of being indecent.
You are not realistically hoping that a Judge is going to say that an image up a skirt is not capable of being indecent?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
On the basis that in Oliver the appeal judge stated that a "surreptitious taking of an image of underwear" could not actually be indecent?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
I'm really sorry but I'm afraid a Judge is not likely to agree that as a matter of law it cannot be indecent.
This very definitely can be an indecent image.
Jo C. and 2 other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Im just slightly confused. If as you say, Oliver still stands, what effect does this have on indecency and the law?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Oliver is a case that defined levels of image.
Actually it has been superceded now anyway.
Oliver is not and has never has been anything even remotely like authority for the proposition that such as an image as this cannot be indecent as a matter of law.