Explore all areas of the law that deal with the sexual offence of paedophilia in cyberspace.

Authors Avatar

Throughout the last ten years there has been a growing problem worldwide regarding the vastly used and relied upon internet. There is no question the internet is overwhelmingly a power for good. It provides quick and easy access to a huge reservoir of information and entertainment, benefiting all social, economical and political aspects. However with such a mass use, approximately 600 million user’s world-wide, there are bound to be, and increasingly evident, illegal and offensive usage. Paedophilia is a growing sexual offence in cyberspace. However as stats noticeably increase, so do the number of questions regarding whether the law is presently adequate to handle such a crime. In writing this essay I pan to investigate the current laws in connection with child sexual offences on the internet, how sentencing is carried out and particularly what it results in. I intend to review cases linked with possession and distribution of child pornography via the World Wide Web and again the extent of punishment. I hope to conclude whether, based on my findings, the law is indeed adequate to serve justice to the public, whether it leaves us safe from the worry of paedophiles violating our homes and the youth of society using the internet, or whether these perverted human beings are able to take advantage of loop holes found in the law and continually escape sentence.

To enable a precise view of the sexual offence being looked upon, I believed a definition of paedophilia would set me off on the right tracks. However, from research there is no legal definition of this term, instead I had to turn to the experienced pupils of this topic and get there expert opinion. Yaman Akdeniz, director of Cyber Right and Liberties, states: Paedophilia can be seen as a minority sexual group, with its own form of expression explicitly involving fantasies and imaginings about sex with children….In most cases, child pornography is a permanent record of the sexual abuse of an adult child.’ (Akdeniz 1997) This description helps me to understand exactly what frame of mind these people are in when accessing the net, and exactly what they are aspiring to achieve.

The UK law today that protects us from sexual offences is made up of numerous legislations. However the UK does not have a written constitution, but the provisions of the European Convention on human rights are now incorporated into UK laws and all domestic legislation has to be in conformity with the Convention. The relevant legislation begins with The Protection of Children Act of 1978 (as amended). This legislation states:

  • (1) it is an offence for a person-
  • To take, or permit to be taken, or to make and indecent photograph, or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
  • To distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or
  • To have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself to others….

This Act of 1978 gives clear inclination that the law prosecutes against any person whom produces, possesses or distributes any form of photography or pseudo-photography involving sexual inclusion of a child. Indecent photographs are legally defined as ‘including data stored on a computer disc, or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion to a photograph…A pseudo-photograph is an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph and includes copies of pseudo-photographs and data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a pseudo-photograph.’ [Bainbridge, 2004] The definition also includes the versions of video and film recordings, which can also easily be distributed across cyberspace, being considered copies or negatives. Although the Act certainly vastly protects society against paedophiles obtaining any pornographic material involving a child under the age of 16, it doesn’t however proceed to define the term ‘indecent’, leaving it up to the courts to interpret its meaning. This is a worrying issue in my opinion, as although I do have quite strong faith in the courts of the present day applying justice and equality; it does seem concerning that two separate cases can differ due to the courts slightly different interpretation of the term ‘indecent’. However, despite this minor loophole, I do still feel the Act provides thorough protection, the main defence under section one to a charge being a ‘legitimate reason’ for possession or distribution, or the person didn’t have ‘any cause to suspect, them being indecent.’ This defence being appropriate, I feel, is very unlikely under the circumstances, and therefore the person will be subject to the prospect of a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or fine or both.

Join now!

An example of the seriousness of how the courts regard defying the Protection of Children Act of 1978 is shown in R v Fellows and Arnold (1997). Alban Fellows was jailed for three years by a trial judge, who believed containing indecent pictures of children on a computer at Birmingham University whom by he was employed, could have incited sexual abuse of the innocent. Fellows printed these images as well as making them available on the internet. He and friend Stephen Arnold were charged with a total of 18 charges, under the Protection of Children Act 1978, Obscene Publications ...

This is a preview of the whole essay