Sentencing: Digital manipulation, Production or Possession?
The Court of Appeal in R v Jaycock [2024] EWCA Crim 954 clarified the sentencing approach where the faces of children have been superimposed on images of adult bodies engaged in sexual activity.
The issue was should such images be categorised as production or possession for sentencing purposes?
The appellant was sentenced for possession of indecent images of children, namely ‘pseudo-photographs’, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
Briefly, the appellant was in possession of 8 x category A images, 2 x category B images and 1 x category C image.
The appellant admitted making the images in question by digitally superimposing the faces of children onto the bodies of adults for his own sexual gratification.
The current sentencing guidelines effective from 01/04/14, categorise ‘image’ offences in terms of possession, distribution or production.
Pursuant to the guidelines, distribution includes possession with a view to distributing or sharing images. Generally, production includes taking or making an image at source. Making an image by simply downloading the image, is considered possession for the purposes of sentencing.
Applying the guidelines, the appellant was sentenced on the basis that he had produced the images and so the starting point was 6years’ custody, with a sentencing range of 4-9 years’ custody.
The appellant was sentenced to 3years and four months custody in respect of the category A offences, clearly the lead offences, with an additional six months’ custody for the category B and C offences, to run consecutively, making a total sentence of 3years’ and ten months.
As above, the issue on appeal concerned the categorisation of such images.
On appeal and after careful consideration of R v Oliver [2002] EWCA Crim 2766, R v Norval [2015] EWCA Crim 1694 and R v Bateman [2020] EWCA Crim 1333, their Lordships dismissed the appeal.
Their Lordships found that the sentencing judge had correctly categorised the images when applying the current sentencing guidelines. It was remarked that these were “serious offences”, as images of children had been deliberately manipulated and exploited for sexual gratification.
For further details:
Jaycock, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 954 (11 July 2024) (bailii.org)