![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Brown, R v [2015] EWCA Crim 1791 (18 November 2015) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/1791.html Cite as: [2015] EWCA Crim 1791 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
ON APPEAL FROM CROWN COURT AT WOOLWICH
Her Honour Judge Robinson
T20111073
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
and
RECORDER OF WESTMINSTER (HIS HONOUR JUDGE MCCREATH
(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION)
____________________
Regina |
Respondent |
|
- and - |
||
Christopher Brown |
Appellant |
____________________
Christiaan Moll for the Crown
Hearing date: 27th October 2015
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lady Justice Rafferty:
Expert evidence
Areas of dispute
Ruling on submission at the close of the case for the Crown
The defence case
Grounds of appeal
Grounds of opposition
Discussion and conclusion
"The issues which you have to decide in respect of these three counts of these. Are you sure the defendant downloaded these files intentionally?… Are you sure that the defendant knew the files did or were likely to contain anindecent
![]()
image
of a child? If the answer to both these questions is yes the defendant is guilty. If the answer to either question is no, he's not guilty."
The jury returned verdicts of not guilty.
"There is no dispute that these were downloaded by the defendant using FrostWire. Further, the folder they were contained in must have been opened because they were viewed on screen. Therefore, they were downloaded and viewed intentionally rather than by accident. Therefore in respect of these counts there is only one issue for you to decide which is this: are you sure the defendant knew the files did or were likely to contain anindecent
![]()
image
of a child? If the answer that question is yes, the defendant is guilty if the answer is no, he is not guilty."
The jury returned verdicts of guilty.
"Although there is no evidence as to the original filename for theseimages,
the date or time and there were downloaded or by which user account, the defendant accepts that they can only have been downloaded by him via FrostWire. Because there is no evidence as to how these files came to be downloaded the prosecution seeks to draw an inference from all of the circumstances that they were downloaded intentionally and with knowledge as to the likely contents………….So, again, the issues in respect of these three counts which you have to decide are as follows. First are you sure that the defendant downloaded these files intentionally and, secondly, are you sure that the defendant knew they did all were likely to contain an
indecent
![]()
image
of a child?"
The jury returned verdicts of not guilty.
"The issues which you have to decide in respect of these two counts are as follows. Are you sure that the defendant intended to download animage
which she knew did contain all was likely to contain an
indecent
![]()
image
of a child and, secondly, are you sure………….
The jury returned verdicts of not guilty.
"So the issues arise on this count as in relation to counts 1 to 11 for each of those three locations. If you are sure that one or more of theimages,
the subject of this count, was downloaded or viewed on the screen by the defendant intentionally and with the knowledge that the file did or was likely to contain an
indecent
![]()
image
of a child then the defendant is guilty on count 12. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove its case as to all 131
images
referred to in the indictment."
The jury returned verdicts of guilty, which could have reflected only the thumbcache images
within that catch-all category.