Mr CH

Mr CH was convicted in August 2003 of 12 counts of possession of indecent photographs of a child. Mr CH received a sentence of six months’ imprisonment on each count concurrent and was placed on the sex offenders’ register.

The CCRC received an application for review of the conviction in March 2006.

Mr CH had been convicted of possessing 124 pornographic images of children found on about ten different floppy disks in his bedroom.

All but two of these image files had been deleted. Whilst the defence referred to the images having been deleted, the defence was run on the basis that the disks had been planted.

When the disks were seized, the active image files had not been viewed for over two years. There was no evidence that they had ever been viewed on Mr CC’s computer.

Following review, the CCRC concluded that the trial judge did not adequately direct the jury on the significance of the images having been deleted from the disks and how this impacted on the question of “possession”.

The judge also failed to direct the jury that the relevant issue was whether Mr CC possessed the images. He incorrectly directed them to consider possession of the disks themselves.

In addition, had Mr CC been arrested after the judgment in the case of R v Porter (2006), the CCRC considered that the prosecution’s case would have been limited to the two files that had not been deleted.

In these circumstances, the CCRC considered that the jury may well have been persuaded that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Mr CC had knowledge of the presence of the two active files.

The CCRC referred the conviction in January 2008.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in November 2008.