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: 71361
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice
12826847
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

Jo I was sentenced at a magistrates court 2 weeks ago after

Customer Question

Good Evening JoI was sentenced at a magistrates court 2 weeks ago after 19 months of bail for the Making of indecent images, however, I was sentenced under possession guidelines because the 15 images were all deleted and found in the unallocated clusters of the hard drive. Nothing was saved, moved, renamed, copied etc. Police confirmed was telling the truth in interviews... there was No associated dark web internet access, VPN, secret browsing software, cleaning software, file retrieval software or chatroom access. Unfortunately I made a mistake and ruined my life within 45 mins 19 months ago. I was downloading a movie without paying on a file sharing site never accessed before. I realised pornography was also available. Under legal search terms I found pages of it and also a few files with 'morbid' titles relating to underage. I never assumed this would be the case actually readily available on the web and so I typed in some of those tiles in the search history out of curiosity. I downloaded around 50 files under adult material after which I accessed a couple and deleted straight away and after realising what some of them were. I also deleted the rest of what was downloaded without viewing just incase.Police forensics came back with 8 Cat-A and 7 Cat-B images. As the files were found in the unallocated clusters they could not tell when they were downloaded or if it was viewed or not.
My solicitor told me 3 mins before the hearing to plead guilty because the prosecution would win based on a knowledge of what I had typed in and also that they were there once upon a time- all for early credit.
I can not rest with the sentence because they can not pull any data off to clarify my story of images not being viewed nor the time stamp. I feel like I have been served an extremely harsh sentence and appealing in a crown court would only serve to reduce the already given sentence and not remove the conviction, however, if I went down that route it then could make the papers and also increase my sentence if they feel I shouldn't have contested it.
Would any of the conviction or sentence received be different if they could retrieve the specific data from the images in terms of date, time, not being viewed etc?
My life is it ruins because of this. I was a successful highly paid professional with a daughter and partner. all of which I have lost after 19 months of waiting for this 3 year order, 5 years on the register and a 5 year SHPO with a 28 day Tag.
The paper today showed a male with 6000 images on his machine, he received less sentence than me and his 6000 saved images is obvious what he was doing and his intensions.Is there anything you can suggest I do whist keeping a low profile?
Submitted: 13 days ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 13 days ago.

Hi, welcome to JustAnswer. My name is*****’m a barrister with 12 years of experience and I am happy to help with your question today.

Expert:  Jo C. replied 13 days ago.

I'm not sure what you wanted to achieve?

Customer: replied 13 days ago.
Should the police have been able to clarify that 3 of the files were partically viewed for a few seconds and the rest deleted without being opened, would this have made a difference in mitigation?
Customer: replied 13 days ago.
Are you going to reply on this thread?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 13 days ago.

you seem to accept intentional possession?

you knew what you were downloading?

Customer: replied 13 days ago.
I accept I downloaded pornography using adult themed search terms within the file sharing software, however, the few searches of untoward terms they tell me was made in YOUTUBE. I can 100% categorically say never once have I used youtube for any material of sexual nature in my life. Where they got that from I don't know.
So based on these their statement of untoward terms being made in youtube which I contest, yet the files were downloaded from a totally different software, surely they can not marry the two together and make an assumption? If they could see that these files had been deleted without viewing surely that would at least count towards making some sort of rectification after I had acted had irresponsibly?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 13 days ago.

But did you know that it was child pornography when you downloaded it?

Customer: replied 13 days ago.
I knew the titles were of that nature, however, I didn't believe it was that readily available so I wondered what it was. This was a site for downloading movies and boxsets, computer games etc and music. I had never used it before. I was shocked and horrified and that's why everything was deleted straight away and then out of the recycle bin.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 13 days ago.

Why did you plead guilty?

Customer: replied 13 days ago.
my solicitor had a word with prosecution to get their side of things prior to walking in. He told me they will have me based on the knowledge and the search terms ( which were on youtube …. this did not happen on youtube)
So he said plead guilty, early credit and it will stay at magistrates instead of being drawn on for another 6 months making it over 2 years from arrest to sentencing. I was withered and exhausted and needed an end after 19 months.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 13 days ago.

Oh okay. It was a risk management deal.

In that case, the reason that they would confirm almost immediate deletion was probably that it was inconsistent with your plea.

There is case law that says that a swift deletion does not amount to possession unless of course there was clearly an intention to possess. Therefore, you would have had a defence here. The difficulty your solicitor was concerned about is that it would be disbelieved and so they secured a better deal with safer outcome.

Overall, if they were going to find search terms of interest then pleadings the right thing to do.

If they applied the possession rather than the making guidelines though that it was a good deal.

Can I clarify anything for you?

Jo

Customer: replied 13 days ago.
Thanks for your time Jo. It confirmed tonight just what i needed to know
Goodbye...
Expert:  Jo C. replied 13 days ago.

No problem and all the best.

Remember that I am always available to help with your questions. Even if I am in Court I will usually pick up a question within 12 hours. For future information, please start your question with ‘For Jo C’. You can also bookmark my profile http://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/expert-remus2004/