Re: Answer
You have to prove something that doesn't exist. I think the hysterical interpretation is possibly justified in this case.
No, sorry, but that is wrong. You are taking a small fragment, reading it literally, and not accounting for what other areas of the law say. In order for you to require that defence in the first place, you must have met the standards to be charged with possession, otherwise there would be no charge to defend. So let's look at another part of the same CPS guidance;
"Possession" involves both a physical and mental element.
The physical element is that a person must have custody and control of the photographs stored on a device in order to possess them. This means he / she must be capable of, or in a position to, retrieve them in the sense, for example, of being able to produce them on the screen, make a copy of them or send them to someone else (R v Porter [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. 25; R v Leonard [2012] 2 Cr. App. R. 12). This is of particular relevance in the case of deleted images. Proof of the physical element in such cases will depend on consideration of (a) where the photographs are stored on the device (b) the means by which they could be retrieved in the sense set out above and (c) whether the defendant has the wherewithal to retrieve them i.e. has the technical knowledge and software / other equipment required to do so.
The mental element is knowledge. A defendant must knowingly have custody and control of the photographs found on the device in question.
So explain to me how, having fleetingly seen an indecent image, reported it, and then deleted it, one can be said to " knowingly have custody and control of the photographs found on the device in question"?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
