Indecent Images

About Indecent Images

Indecent images offences are prosecuted under two main statutes. The making, taking, distributing, and showing of indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children is an offence under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. Possession of indecent images of children is a separate offence under Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. "Making" an image has been interpreted broadly by the courts to include downloading, opening, or viewing an image on a screen — even if it was not saved to the device. Since April 2024, the law explicitly covers images generated by artificial intelligence. Creating, possessing, or distributing AI-generated indecent images of children is now prosecuted under the same offences and carries the same maximum sentences, even where no real child was depicted or harmed in their creation.

Images are classified into three categories under the Sentencing Council guidelines, with Category A being the most serious and Category C the least. The category directly affects the sentence the court will impose. The maximum sentence for offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 is ten years' imprisonment for distribution and making, and five years for possession under Section 160 of the CJA 1988. Sentencing depends on the category of images, the volume, whether images were distributed, and the defendant's role.

Digital forensic evidence is the foundation of indecent images cases. The police will seize all devices — computers, phones, tablets, external hard drives, USB drives — and submit them for forensic examination. The forensic analysis will identify images, categorise them, establish when they were accessed or created, and determine whether they were distributed. This process can take many months, during which the defendant is typically released under investigation with bail conditions restricting internet access and contact with children.

Defence in indecent images cases can take several forms. In some cases, the defendant did not know the images were on their device — they may have been placed there by malware, received unsolicited, or accessed inadvertently. In other cases, the defendant's age estimation may differ from the prosecution's — the question of whether a person depicted is under eighteen is not always straightforward. The forensic methodology used by the police can also be challenged, and independent digital forensic examination may reveal that images were not deliberately accessed or that the device was compromised.

Why Early Representation Matters

We instruct independent digital forensic experts to examine your devices separately from the police analysis. This independent examination can reveal crucial information: whether images were deliberately accessed or arrived on the device through malware or pop-ups, whether deleted images in unallocated space were ever knowingly viewed, whether the device was shared with others who may have been responsible, and whether the police's categorisation of the images is accurate.

These cases require sensitive handling and honest advice. We will tell you straight where you stand based on the evidence. If there is a viable defence, we will pursue it rigorously. Where a guilty plea is the appropriate course, we will ensure the court has a full and accurate picture of your circumstances so that any sentence imposed is fair and proportionate. Every case is different, and the approach must be tailored to the specific facts and evidence.