Splintered Lives - Barnardo's

1 (1) (a)
"It is an offence to take, or permit to be taken, any indecent photograph of a child."
This provision also included film, and was subsequently extended to video recordings.
Furthermore it became an offence to possess child pornography with the intention to
show or distribute it to others. There was no definition of indecency, this being defined
through legal precedent; 10 years of court of appeal judgements were based upon
"standards of recognised propriety". A 1989 appeal court judgement stated that
decisions could be reached in terms of the representation itself, it was not necessary to
place it in the context of how it was produced.
Proving intention to show or distribute was problematic, and many owners argued that
what they possessed was merely their own private collection. This difficulty resulted in
Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which made possession of child
pornography without legitimate reason (examples here would be OPS) a penal offence.
It was, however, not an arrestable offence meaning the police had no powers of search.
Flynn (1988) argued for an increase in the penalties for possession which would in turn
make it an arrestable offence. The most recent Criminal Justice Act includes greater
powers to search for and seize computer porn, but there is still no legal framework for
prosecuting material accessed via bulletin boards as this is not covered by importation
legislations.
Britain is one of very few European countries to make simple possession of child
pornography an offence. Susan Edwards (1995) providing an overview of the current
legal situation notes that although the most recent Criminal Justice Act made
possession a serious arrestable offence, with a possible upper penalty of six months
imprisonment, the impact is likely to be minimal. She highlights the fact that this
amendment was made in a reactive context following concerns raised in the Jamie
Bulger case. The primary concern was to be seen to be doing something about
children's access to pornography, rather than the exploitation of children within it. In
terms of child prostitution, the Street Offenses Act 1959 makes no distinction between
adults, young people or children. It is this fact which creates the situation in which
some 15 and 16 year olds have not only cautions for soliciting, but also convictions.
She also notes the problem of inconsistency between the variety of legislation covering
this area23 in relation to the terms and legal tests used. She supports a harm-based
definition (see Itzin, 1993 and 1995) replacing the problematic 'obscenity' test. Further
problems arise in relation to written material which is not currently prosecutable (thus
failing to address UN concerns about materials which "promote" sexual abuse) and the
fact that some of the legislation requires that those in the representations "appear
under 16". B