We represented a young adult of previous good character who had been charged with offences of making and distributing indecent images of children and possession of extreme pornography. These offences dated back to when our client was a 15 year old child. Our client was sent an indecent image by a friend and then forwarded it to another group of young people on a social media platform. He made full admissions to the police in his interview and explained that he only sent it to the group to show them what had been sent to him and how disgusting it was. Despite our client’s admissions, he was never referred to the Youth Offending Service for an out of court disposal to be considered. He was charged with these offences 3 years after his interview. We became instructed after our client was charged and later discovered that the young person who sent our client the image had been interviewed by the police at the time of the offences. The police decided to take no further action against this other young person.
Before our client’s first appearance, we made lengthy written representations to the Crown Prosecution Service in which we argued that it was not in the public interest to prosecute our client for these offences. We confirmed that our position was that the decision to prosecute him may amount to an abuse of process both in light of the unconscionable delay in the case but also in light of the clear disparity in mode of disposal. We outlined the extensive guidance about the unnecessary criminalisation of children and young people in such instances and argued that our client should have received a youth caution at the time. We however, also made clear that we would not agree to a caution at this stage in light of the fact that a Youth Caution could no longer be administered. The Crown’s response was a short letter confirming that they were proceeding with the case against our client and notification that they would be applying for a Sexual Harm Prevention Order should our client be convicted.
In light of this, at our client’s first appearance, we advised our client to give no indication as to his plea and informed that Court that we would be making an abuse of process argument. The matter was subsequently sent to the Crown Court and we made extensive disclosure requests and representations to the Crown Prosecution Service. Shortly before the abuse of process argument was due to take place, the Crown confirmed that they would be offering no evidence against our client on the basis of our clients age at the time and the disparity in mode of disposal. The Court subsequently recorded a formal not guilty verdict in relation to all matters and our client remained a young adult of good character.
Our client was represented by Sabrina Neves, a solicitor in our specialist Youth Justice Team and in Court by Elena Papamichael, Garden Court Chambers.
