Indecent Images - All Charges Dropped in Second Discontinuance of 2023
BSQ's private criminal department have secured another successful outcome for a professional client who was wrongly accused of accessing illegal material on his computer.
This is the second discontinuance in recent months for BSQ, following on from the case of J reported earlier here.
BSQ’s Client H became the subject of a police investigation after the authorities received intelligence that someone at his home address had been accessing illegal material based on information from his Internet service provider.
Police officers then searched H’s home and seized used his digital devices. The devices were later examined and an initial streamlined forensic report – known as an SFRY1 – was produced. The SFRY -1 only contained a rudimentary analysis of H’s digital footprint but did indicate the discovery of unlawful material. As discussed in a recent BSQ blog, SFRY 1 reports are often rudimentary and do not contain a detailed analysis of the digital footprint of a computer user.
BSQ’s further enquiries revealed that on a more detailed analysis of H’s digital footprint, there was reasonable doubt as to whether H had knowingly and deliberately accessed any illegal material found. After drafting a defence case statement which was provided to the CPS at the Crown Court, the CPS conducted a further review of their decision to prosecute based on BSQ’s representations. Ultimately, a decision was taken by the Crown to offer no evidence in the case.
H, an IT professional, retains his good character. The result vindicates the position taken by H when he as first interviewed by the police, namely that he denied ever knowingly accessing illegal material.
Sadly, H’s case is by no means an isolated example of an instance where reliance on a flawed SFRY 1 report has led to a mistaken decision to charge. The SFRY1 system was introduced in an effort to encourage the early resolution of cases and the reports operate to encourage early guilty pleas. Issues arise where, as in H’s case, the contents of a SFRY1 report are challenged.
H 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.