Legal Matter - Possession and Distribution of Indecent Images
The client is facing charges related to the possession and distribution of indecent images involving minors under relevant legislation. There are indications of previous convictions for similar offences as well as additional allegations, although some resulted in no further action. The client asserts that the images were received unwittingly and were promptly deleted, arguing against possession and intent. Concerns have been raised about procedural improprieties concerning the issuance of search warrants, including possible omissions of relevant information. The client is undergoing ongoing mental health evaluations, including a recent diagnosis that may influence their defence.
Questions about this case
These answers have been verified by a lawyer in the LEAP networkWhat are the potential defences available for charges related to possession and distribution of indecent images?
For charges related to possession and distribution of indecent images, potential defences may include demonstrating a lack of knowledge or intent regarding the images, proving a lack of control over or access to the images, highlighting procedural errors in the collection of evidence, or establishing mistaken identity.
How can my mental health conditions impact my defence strategy or the charges against me?
Your mental health conditions could significantly affect your defence strategy, as they may influence your cognitive functions and intent related to the charges. Expert testimony may help explain how these conditions impact your actions and decision-making.
What are the legal implications of past convictions being spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in relation to the current charges?
Spent convictions generally should not be considered in legal proceedings; however, exceptions exist for serious offences, particularly those related to sexual offences. Past convictions may still be considered during risk assessment or sentencing, so consulting with legal counsel to understand their impact is crucial.
How do procedural improprieties in obtaining search warrants affect the validity of the evidence collected?
Procedural improprieties in obtaining search warrants can render the evidence collected inadmissible in court, especially if the warrants were issued without proper grounds or based on incomplete information.
What are the repercussions if the prosecution decides to proceed with the charges despite identified procedural and evidential deficiencies?
If the prosecution proceeds with the charges despite deficiencies, the defence may argue for dismissal or exclusion of evidence, potentially significantly weakening the prosecution's case.
What are the options in challenging the decision of the prosecution to charge me with the offences?
Options to challenge the prosecution's decision may include seeking a judicial review, presenting new evidence, requesting a review under relevant victim's rights schemes, or arguing human rights implications if applicable.
Are there any errors in the prosecution's application of the full code test that can be used by the defence?
The prosecution's application of the full code test may be challenged based on procedural and evidential deficiencies that undermine the case's viability.
Considering all of the documents, are there any failures by the prosecution to consider evidence that would assist the defence?
The prosecution may have overlooked key evidence, such as the lack of intent and control over the images, which could support the defence.
Are there any additional case authorities that support the defence?
Relevant case authorities that may support the defence include precedents that establish lack of intent or control as critical elements in possession charges, as well as rulings regarding evidential thresholds for obscenity.
