In another successful outcome for BSQ’s private crime department, the CPS have decided to offer no evidence in an indecent images prosecution after receiving written representations from us.

BSQ assumed conduct of Client J’s case after J approached the firm having decided to dispense with his original lawyers two months before his trial. J was charged with the possession of a small number of illegal images of Categories A and C and extreme material discovered following a police forensic examination of his mobile phone. The images had been transmitted on a multiuser WhatsApp thread. 

The decision to charge J was made based on the findings of a police Streamlined Forensic Report (“SFRY”) which concluded that illegal material had been distributed on this thread.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, the police did not conduct a full and thorough analysis of J’s digital footprint when compiling this report. To save costs, the investigating authorities will regularly commission a barebones SFRY document which is limited in that only documents the existence of any illegal materials found in a device but does not include any further information as to, for example, a client’s internet browsing history.

Client J instructed BSQ that he had no recollection of ever viewing any illegal material on his device let. J was advised that if accurate, this explanation could provide him with a defence on the basis that he was not knowingly in possession of any illegal material. J had not been advised of this previously by his earlier legal representatives. Upon further examination of the device, BSQ ‘s enquiries revealed that there was no evidence that J had ever viewed or accessed any of the illegal images distributed on the WhatsApp thread.

BSQ partner, Roger Sahota made written representations to the CPS asking them to review their original findings and to instruct their expect to perform a second more comprehensive analysis of our client’s digital footprint. Accepting these representations, CPS decided to offer no evidence against J, a businessman, who retains his good character.

BSQ have previously been instructed in a number of similar cases where clients have been wrongly charged based on an inadequate SFRY analysis. BSQ have been able to demonstrate in each of these cases that charges against our clients should not be proceeded with.

J was represented throughout by BSQ partner Roger Sahota acting as solicitor and counsel.

You can find more information about our indecent images solicitors defence services, see our practice page.

 If you are accused of an indecent images offence and require legal representation, please contact our London offices on 020 3858 0851.