[First filed: May 24, 2010 @ 10:09]
The Supreme Court has published a judgment from late last week on a child pornography owner. The material found on his seven DVDs was described thusly:
9. In addressing the nature of the material, the approach has been taken to follow the scale of seriousness set out by the United Kingdom Court of Appeal in R v Oliver  1 Cr App R 28 where (at 467) the court categorised the relevant levels as:
1. images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity;
2. sexual activity between children or solo masturbation by a child;
3. non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children;
4. penetrative sexual activity between children and adults;
5. sadism or bestiality.
Using that scale there were eight video files of level 1, 15 video files of level 2, 15 video files of level 3, 54 video files of level 4 and four video files of level 5.
10. A more detailed analysis was incorporated as part of the agreed statement of facts. I do not need to describe the material save to say that some of the material was of a most disturbing kind, with oral sex between adults and quite young children, penile-vaginal sex with young children, bestiality and other abhorrent acts. The children ranged in ages from 3 to 15 years old, with the majority, apparently, in the range of three to seven years old. An estimate, not accurate, especially as some faces could not be seen, was of some 377 children who were victims in the course of making those videos. The videos range in time from 1 second to 33 minutes and 51 seconds.
In an earlier similar case the perpetrator is constantly in my ear begging, cajoling, wheedling, occasionally demanding, and every now and then making spurious legal threats.
Weekly NewsletterEvery Thursday afternoon, we package up the most-read and trending RiotACT stories of the past seven days and deliver straight to your inbox..
If RiotACT didn’t name him then googling his name wouldn’t bring up a result related to his offence on the first page. He thinks he would find it much easier to get another job in his field if potential employers had to dig a little deeper.
So readers; should we name them when the non-publication order is lifted? Is the public mark in perpetuity part of the sentence (in today’s case suspended with community service)?
UPDATE: The mob has spoken (I should note the mob was only consulted because this was a rare occasion where it could go either way for me).
Bruce Ronald Ashman, I hope you’re really very sorry for what you’ve done.
Further update: Well that didn’t take long: