I saw an
Murray admitted being in possession of the images at his Dyce home between July 1 and September 9, 2008, when he appeared in court in October. Sheriff Cowan asked to see a hard copy of the indecent images – as often happens in such cases – to help her decide on an appropriate sentence.
Mr Richardson offered to let her view the files on a laptop, but the sheriff insisted on seeing a hard copy.
But the fiscal refused her request – in case he committed a crime. Mr Richardson told Sheriff Cowan “I can’t comply with that because that would create an offence.”
I've just finished my MSc and so think I have a fairly good theoretical understanding of the law as it applies here in Scotland, but I am just beginning my career and have no experience in law enforcement so don't have a great understanding of how the law actually applies in practice. That being said, I tend to agree with the fiscal in that making a new, hard copy could fall foul of the letter of the law, but at the same time I would be shocked if it was deemed in the public interest to prosecute the fiscal under such circumstances.
I would be interested to know the thoughts of other members of the community as this has kicked up a bit of a fuss in the local paper!
Thanks,
Peter
I have no specific knowledge of the practice of law in Scotland, but as a general principle, if there's an issue with the request from the judge, one objects, explains the reason for the objection, and then if the judge wants to produce a formal order instructing the prosecution to produce the images, then the prosecutor is covered .
The simple fact of the matter is that one is producing the copy that's on the laptop, so if one could be found guilty of production for producing a copy for court, one would already have committed the crime. It doesn't matter if the contraband is replicated digitally, or printed, one has still produced a copy.
At this point, it's really just an argument about form over substance.
Disclaimer Not legal advice, not a lawyer.
The ACPO guide may have some details regarding this.
http//
My guess is there may be a provision for this in law. This web page may help
http//
Particularly the section regarding defences under Protection of Children Act 1978. I've not studied how this may applt to Scotland.
"The s1B defence is available where a person 'making' an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph can prove that it was necessary to do so for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings. Archbold 31 - 107a and 107b."