Surely, the IIoC do not need to be examined, what needs to be examined is how they were made, distributed or how they came into the possession of the defendant. As we all know, to establish answers to these questions all the computer evidence has to be examined, which ultimately means providing material where IIoC may be derived from.
Afraid I disagree on that like the others. An example being a previous case I did where the individual was charged with not a huge amount of material, but suffice it to say upon viewing, very few could be confidently said to be child images. Further mitigating factors around the likely intent of the user / origin of the images found upon examining the PC meant that on the first day of court the case was dropped completely after defence counsel discussed the findings with the prosecution and made clear how weak their case was.
The main thing to note is that the analyst in question was complying with his Force policy; it wasn't his individual view. I think it was wrong to beat him up over it!
From reading Judicial Review….
An element of contempt maybe whether there is 'legal personality' with respect to those in contempt. The fact that the Judge found it necessary and had to 'caution', in words (figuratively speaking), "if you do that again" may create a possible, attributable 'personality' and may define a potential cause of action. It is irrelevant that someone or a body somewhere made 'policy' but that the person/body responsible 'knew' or 'ought to have known' the obligations encumbent.
IIoC material is, understandably, such an incredibly evocative subject. Policy procedures are subject to examination and determination [by the COURT] as to whether they (policy procedures) are 'fit for purpose' and thus should not be used as overriding law in advance to subjugate the supremacy of a court ruling. If the Court at 'first instance' ruling raises a legal point or irregularity that requires leave to 'appeal' and/or'judicial review' then that is another matter. The Police, Crown and Defence are fully aware of their legal obligations (ignorance of the law is no defence etc). If the Judge is having to lecture an offending party in this way as to what the rule of law actually means as per direction of the Court then the onus lies firmly with the 'admonished' party to have submitted the first time around to the Court ruling. Non-compliance by simply ignoring a Court's order on the foundation argument that a department's policy says something else is not the way to go about disobeying a Court's order.
Just an observation from what I read …