“with regard to the risk of progression to contact offending Mr Hicks past history and his attitude to his offending does suggest that he presents a risk of progressing to contact offending. He has shown himself to have a persistent sexual arousal to images of children, and he has reported a degree of identification of children stemming from his own abuse. These are both risk factors for contact offending. However, he has not reported that he sees the abuse of children to be in any way justified or beneficial to them and there is no evidence that he has sought out children for the purpose of abuse or has begun to groom them for this purpose. Hence the risk of contact offending while present is unlikely to be high or immediate. It is more likely that contact offending remains an action to which he may progress in the medium to long term if his issues are not addressed.”
“the judge at first instance in that case… acknowledged as I do that making indecent photographs is not in itself a crime that involves direct personal contact with children but observed that people who looked at images of this kind were watching real children and the process involved the exploitation of real children for the purposes of sexual gratification. Some of the markets in the material existed because there were those who wished to examine it and derive satisfaction from doing so. From what I read in (Dr Hull’s) report you plainly derived such satisfaction and are aroused by this sort of material. In the case of Howell the sentencing judge concluded that the appellant presented a significant risk of substantial harm to children based on the pattern of misconduct in that case. The Court of Appeal found he was fully entitled to reach the conclusion that he did and the Appellant was properly regarded as someone who fell within the meaning of dangerousness. 10. I should say that the doctor’s view is that contact offending while the risk is present is unlikely to be high or immediate. I regard you as presenting a risk of contact offences and I regard it as a significant risk. People like you encourage those who perpetrate child abuse to operate and corrupt children. Children suffer prolonged physical and emotional and psychological emotional abuse from this sort of behaviour in providing entertainment for people like you, something you appear blindly oblivious to.”
“The provisions of the CJA must be interpreted purposefully and with the statutory consequences in mind if they are not to be applied far more intensively than parliament intended. The serious consequences signal the degree of risk and gravity of harm which the offenders specified re-offending must occasion. The seriousness of the harm required by the CJA is emphasised by the words “death or serious personal injury”
“the serious harm thus relied on here is the harm to children through the perpetuation of the market or distribution networks for indecent images. This puts children at risk of being forced to participate in the activities leading to such images or causes psychological harm to a child who realises either at the time or later that images of him or her are being used as object of perverted sexual gratification.”
“27. In all these circumstances the re-offending which is at risk would make a direct but small contribution to the market or distribution of such indecent images. That is turn would make an indirect but small contribution to the risk that indecent images of children would be taken. A child groomed or made to participate in sexual acts for those purposes may suffer serious harm of one sort or another depending upon the activity. A child who becomes aware that he or she is being photographed for sexual gratification of an adult who may not even be known to them may suffer serious psychological harm. 28. In our judgment it cannot reasonably be said in a context of these particular statutory provisions that there is a significant risk of this applicants re-offending occasioning harm to a child or children whether through perpetuating the market or through further indecent images being taken or through a child becoming aware of the indecent purposes to which photographs might be put. The link between the offending act of downloading these indecent images and the possible harm which might be done to children is too remote to satisfy the requirement that it be this appellant’s re-offending which causes the serious harm. Worse, there would be an indirect and small contribution to a harm which might or might not occur depending on whether further photographs were taken in part as a result of the appellant’s contribution to the market or depending on whether a child found out about the uses to which they were put as a result. The imprisonment for public protection provisions of the CJA do not apply in the circumstances here where simply as a matter of generalisation a small, uncertain and indirect contribution to harm may be made by a repeat of this offender’s offending. No significant risk of serious harm of the requisite gravity occasioned by a repetition of the offending in this case by this offender can reasonably be said to exist.”
“if apt and effective restrictions could be imposed through a SOPO e.g. use of a computer internet access possibly contact with individuals or children which would address the degree of risk and the seriousness of harm, the statutory criteria might not be satisfied… the same effect would be true of other penalties or orders.”