Commonly a defendant will try and say that child abuse images found in their possession were not of underage models, or at least they didn't know they did.
In some cases the victim is clearly pre adolescent. But in many cases the victim is post adolescent but under 16 - what are the usual rules and guidelines in estimating and evidencing the age of victims?
In very important cases like this, in Hungary the practice is to involve 4-5 medical forensic experts besides the IT forensic experts and then collect their analysis results.
The medical forensic experts are usually asking for 2D and 3D measurements, this is the info I know from our IT side, but I have no idea what else the medicals use to take decisions on their side.
Commonly a defendant will try and say that child abuse images found in their possession were not of underage models, or at least they didn't know they did.
Which is strangely symmetrical, since prosecution will try and say that all pictures feature under age models and that the suspect perfectly knew that.
In some cases the victim is clearly pre adolescent. But in many cases the victim is post adolescent but under 16 - what are the usual rules and guidelines in estimating and evidencing the age of victims?
Existing topic/discussion
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=6448/
jaclaz
The basic principle in UK cases is that an expert witness need only be required to assist explaining a subject where 'ordinary' members of the public who make up a jury are unlikely to have sufficient knowledge.
There are at least two cases, R v Michael Land (1998) and R v Charles William Owen (1988), where it was decided that the age of a person in a photograph was a subject where the jury would not need expert assistance.
Therefore, the prosecution would put forward the opinion that the subject was under age, based on the opinion of investigator or analyst. If that opinion is not accepted by the defence it is a matter purely for the jury to decide.
I am certainly not a lawyer but I have not heard of any more recent case law to contradict the above, but would certainly be interested to know if there is.
… what are the usual rules and guidelines in estimating and evidencing the age of victims?
This is a question more appropriate for forensic medicine or perhaps forensic anthropology than computer forensics. Google for 'Forensic Age Estimation'.
A link I've saved is http//
The basic principle in UK cases is that an expert witness need only be required to assist explaining a subject where 'ordinary' members of the public who make up a jury are unlikely to have sufficient knowledge.
There are at least two cases, R v Michael Land (1998) and R v Charles William Owen (1988), where it was decided that the age of a person in a photograph was a subject where the jury would not need expert assistance.
Therefore, the prosecution would put forward the opinion that the subject was under age, based on the opinion of investigator or analyst. If that opinion is not accepted by the defence it is a matter purely for the jury to decide.
I am certainly not a lawyer but I have not heard of any more recent case law to contradict the above, but would certainly be interested to know if there is.
So basically if it COULD be underage then report it, and it's for the defendant to prove that they're of legal age? Sounds quite flawed.
I'm asking because I have no training in viewing indecent images.
I began my forensic work starting examining mobile devices but I'm slowly starting to examine more computers.
What I find on a lot of computers is that the biggest portion of the memory is taken up by pornographic images and videos, but the case under investigation may be a computer misuse or fraud offence. So I have to take some responsibility that the content does not depict underage or extreme material. Of course most pornographic images depict young models but underage or not can be a tough call.
How do most people handle this issue?
@wotsits
Be aware that the mere possession of such material may be in itself an offence.
If you are LE, talk with your commanding officer, if you are not LE you'd better contact Police directly or through your company lawyer, see
https://
particularly
https://
https://
and FAQ's
https://
ASAP.
jaclaz
So basically if it COULD be underage then report it, and it's for the defendant to prove that they're of legal age? Sounds quite flawed.
I'm asking because I have no training in viewing indecent images.
Basically UK law states that if a jury of 'normal' people believe that the image depicts a child and they believe it be indecent then it is.
So if the prosecution says its a child, the defence say it isn't then the jury decides it.
Very rarely gets to a jury from my experience
The medical forensic experts reports are the most important in these cases. The IT forensic experts just cooperate providing the "input data" for them.
The medical forensic experts reports are the most important in these cases. The IT forensic experts just cooperate providing the "input data" for them.
This is not the case in the UK. Expert evidence is inadmissible and it's a finding of fact for a jury.
So basically if it COULD be underage then report it, and it's for the defendant to prove that they're of legal age? Sounds quite flawed.
I'm asking because I have no training in viewing indecent images.
I began my forensic work starting examining mobile devices but I'm slowly starting to examine more computers.
What I find on a lot of computers is that the biggest portion of the memory is taken up by pornographic images and videos, but the case under investigation may be a computer misuse or fraud offence. So I have to take some responsibility that the content does not depict underage or extreme material. Of course most pornographic images depict young models but underage or not can be a tough call.
How do most people handle this issue?
No this is not the case………that would be deeply unfair and wrong……..people would be getting 'charged' on all sorts of dodgy pictures which are not children.
There are a number of key considerations which we advise investigators, mainly that it is 'beyond doubt' that the image depicts a child. Another is that if there is any doubt the decision should be made in favour of the suspect. Many LE staff use the phrase 'if in doubt, leave it out'. As minime2k pointed out, the ultimate decision in the UK would be for the Jury.
That being said, just because an image cannot be said to be a child 'beyond doubt' does not mean it is not evidentially relevant to the case. I commonly peer review work which is completed by external providers where they have 'missed' images out of reports in Grooming type jobs. In these type of jobs many of the images are 'borderline' but should still be included. This allows investigating officers/forensic investigators to match the images to recovered chat logs (or other communication) and to identify the victims through Telecoms requests. I.e To actually trace the victim and identify that they are <18 years old.
It's not as black and white as leave it out or put it in. IMHO too many forensic practitioners look at our field as a purely techy subject. In LE environment as well as being technically competent you need to be a competent investigator. Again IMHO, this is where ISO 17025 is seriously detrimental to our field as it heavily encourages process driven 'sausage factory' processing.
There is some useful info on case law relating to IIoC in the following link
https://