Ben Madilynn
The developing scandal surrounding allegations that a BBC presenter paid a 17-year-old for explicit images is full of questions – the identity of the presenter (who remains unnamed in the media), the age of the young person when the alleged explicit images were taken, and of course, whether the allegations are true and can be proved to be true. The UK law is well-known when it comes the exchange of sexually explicit materials involving teenagers.
According to claims made by the youngster’s mother and published in The Sun magazine, the presenter received tens or thousands of pounds for explicit pictures. According to the mother of the young person, online communications began between the two when she was 17.
The young person claims through their lawyer The following are some examples of how to use “nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place”. It will also depend on whether or not they are able to establish this.
The law does not require that the exchanged images be accompanied by the age of the person. The law may not have been broken if the images were sent after the person reached the age of 18. If, however, they were under 18 – a child, for the purposes of the law regarding indecent images – there could hypothetically be a range of possible offences, the seriousness of which could increase depending on the circumstances.
The age when young people are able to share explicit photos is older than the age they consent to sexual activity. In this age of social media, where the content is not regulated, it’s becoming more and more concerning that children are producing indecent pictures. It is likely that the allegations in this case will be taken seriously – regardless of whether or not a young person gave consent.
From what we know – and it is a very incomplete picture at the moment of
course – the most likely offence to be under consideration here will be that set out in in the Protection of Children Act 1978. It is illegal to show, take, create, distribute, or advertise indecent pictures or videos. “pseudo-photographs” The definition of a child. The definition of “make” Included livestreamed imagesWhen viewed, a’since’ is a ‘when’. images are “made”.
This is also an offense under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 Possessing an indecent picture of a minor, even if it was distributed after the subject turned 18.
In order to convict anyone in such a case, the jury would have to find that the image was blatantly false. “indecent”. This is a decision that was made objectively. recognised standards of propriety Include the child’s age.
It is important to note that it’s not the conduct of a defendant but the photograph taken by the child as a result. It is important to consider the age of a child when determining whether or not the photographs are indecent.
The police and prosecutors may decide that the jury will likely feel that an image of a child is not indecent if it’s close to 18. They could then take no further action.
The Police have not yet launched an investigation. If action were taken, and a prosecution led to conviction and a sentence, it would likely be based (from what we’ve been told) on the possession or making of images that involve “non-penetrative sexual activity” A child. The crime of making an image attracts a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. Possession starts at 26 week.
What is an abuse of power?
According to reports, the lawyer for the youngster has issued a statement. Meanwhile, the family of the victim believes this was a coercive act by someone in a position with considerable influence. vulnerable young person.
A misuse of power or trust can be a factor that increases the maximum penalty for committing the offence to four years imprisonment. The judge can also consider the vulnerability of the children depicted in the images, the number or possession of those images and whether or not the child appears to be drunk or intoxicated.
krylova_nlp/Shutterstock
If proven true, the mother’s claim that the money she claims was paid to her son was used for significant drug consumption may lead to other more serious crimes.
Sexual Offences Act, 2003 defines it as a crime to purposefully cause or encourage a child to be sexually abused (again under 18). The maximum penalty is 14 years in prison. Sexual exploitation includes providing sexual services in exchange for money. Since 2017, this includes situations in which images are transmitted via internet or other technologies.
In cases covered by the act, the age of the child could also be relevant. Should the presenter claim that he thought the child was over 18 – questions that are no doubt being currently asked – then a potential prosecution would need to establish that the average person would not have held the same belief.
When sentencing a child, the age of the victim also matters. The maximum sentence is significantly reduced if the victim is 16 or 17 years old. If the judge feels that there has been a violation of the law, then he may reduce this to 12 months. “cultivation of a dependency on drugs or alcohol”It is possible that the maximum sentence would be around five years.
