Child Pornography - Home | National Rapporteur on Trafficking in ...

194
<strong>Child</strong> PornograPhy First report oF the Dutch NatioNal rapporteur
Registered cases by gravest offence
One case may involve multiple offences. Figure 3.10 provides an overview of the gravest offence recorded
for each child pornography case that is registered. 450 The gravest offence is considered to be
the offence that carries the most severe penalty. 451 The term does not assess the offence in qualitative
terms.
Figure 3.10 Registered cases by gravest offences (2005-2010)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Other oences
Human tracking
Removing a minor from
the care of the person
who has legal custody
Other sexual oences
Sexual oences
commied against minors
Non-aggravated
child pornography
Aggravated
child pornography
On average, child pornography (aggravated or non-aggravated) is the only offence registered, or the
gravest offence registered, in 77% of cases. In the event that an offence that is graver than child pornography
is also suspected, this usually concerns a sexual offence (21%), often involving a minor
(10%).
Registered cases and preventive detention
Figure 3.11 shows the proportion of suspects registered with the Public Prosecution Service in the period
between 2005 and 2010 that were being held in preventive detention at any time. 452 However, this
does not mean to say that the suspect was (still) in preventive detention when the court session took
place. 453
450 Please refer to Appendix 4, Table B4.8 for the table containing the complete summary of this data.
451 In the event of a combination of offences which carry the same penalty, child pornography shall be
classified as the gravest offence. If, following this, multiple offences that carry the same penalty still
exist, the offence that is stated first shall prevail.
452 Please refer to Appendix 4, Table B4.9 for the table containing the complete summary of this data.
453 Preventive detention can, during the course of its term, be suspended or revoked. This data does not,
therefore, provide information with regard to the number of suspects that were still being detained
preventively when the judgment was pronounced. In this case, it concerns formal preventive detention
(therefore the decision to enforce preventive detention, regardless of whether this was actually
implemented), and the issue of whether or not the suspect was taken into police custody was not taken
into consideration.