Alex Heney  posted
>On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:03:43 +0100, PeteM  wrote:
>>Alex Heney  posted
>>>
>>>Whether this particular image is one which was objectively indecent,
>>>we will never know without looking at it, but whether it is similar to
>>>ones which could be found in a medical textbook *is* irrelevant,
>>>because of that exception.
>>
>>What exception?
>
>From the Protection Of Children Act 1978 (as amended)
>------------------------------------
>(4) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b)
>or (c), it shall be a defence for him to prove—
>(a) that he had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the
>photographs [F5or pseudo-photographs]or (as the case may be) having
>them in his possession; or
>------------------------------------
>
>So if they are in a medical textbook for which the person has a
>legitimate requirement, then that would be a defence.

It would not. R v Mould was brought under POCA 1(1)(a) - the infamous
"making" charge - under which there is *no* defence of legitimate
reason, or wasn't at the time anyway. See para 14 of the CoA judgement -
"14 Although there is a defence for a person to prove that he has a
legitimate reason for distributing or showing photographs (see section
1(4) of the 1978 Act) that defence is not available for the offence with
which this appellant was charged." 

However that's scarcely the point. The real point is the meaning of
"indecency". It seems to be generally agreed - by yourself, myself and
the CoA - that if the Mould picture was "indecent", then pictures in
medical textbooks are also "indecent" (bearing in mind that the
indecency of a picture is legally a property *only* of the picture and
not of its origin or purpose or the use to which it is put). But it is
completely absurd to say that a picture of a naked child in a medical
textbook is indecent. From this fact it inevitably follows (by the modus
tollens principle) that the Mould picture could not possibly have been
indecent. However the CoA judges drew the opposite conclusion. Therefore
the CoA judges were absurd. 

-- 
PeteM

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com