This character has come to grief in a rather unusual way. Shocking as his crime was (keep a straight face, now!) his sentence should perhaps be increased for the sheer stupidity of the offence. I am used to sitting in magistrates' courts and also in the Crown Court and it is usually easy to see what is on the clerk's screen (I should say that the Crown Court clerk is a different animal from the JPs' legal adviser as he or she is not a qualified lawyer).
If looking at internet smut is your thing, then it is your thing. Just don't watch it while a Circuit Judge is looking over your shoulder, and while the public are paying your wages.
One can only conjecture why it was that an HMCTS computer had so few security settings that access was permitted. This represents a serious breach of GSi and GCSx standards and should be reported in its own right. The sanction is to disallow access by any of the organisations computers to the Government Secure network.
ReplyDeleteBien trouvé, BS (even if it was in the Hate Mail!).
ReplyDeleterex_imperator... presumably because can be trusted to use a computer in a proper fashion and won't act like children?
ReplyDeleteHe admitted doing this for three years and it's only recently noticed!
ReplyDeleteI think placing him on the Sex Offender's Register is a bit harsh. Sure, what he did was completely stupid and inappropriate for *where* he did it but would be legal if he'd done it at home.
ReplyDeleteI suspect he was put on the Register because of what was found on his home Computer and not what he did at work.
DeleteWhat actually was the offence, and what was the basis for the search warrant for his home ? Much more to this than its superficial reporting.
ReplyDeleteMajumder admitted a single count of misconduct in public office, seven counts of possessing indecent pseudo images of children and an additional count of possessing extreme pornography.
DeleteIdiot! What he does at home (apart from the child stuff) is his business, but in court??? He's clearly unhinged...
Mr Frost once again shows why he should never be trusted with anything that requires attention to detail.
DeleteMotVG: If you think that the Daily Wail accurately reports technical detail, then that's the press you deserve.
DeleteMeanwhile, your starter for 10: Kindly provide us all with the legal definition of a pseudo image. Is Fred Bassett a legal pseudo image ? If so, then what is the limit of legality among pseudo images, may one inquire ?
And which statute, Act, or common law precedent case uses the phrase 'possession of indecent pseudo images' ?
And don't obfuscate with the term pseudo-photograph, please.
DeleteOther media (including the Metro, which is barely above the Mail when it comes to quality journalism admittedly) have him as possessing 'indecent images of children'.
DeleteFor most of us when considering digital media, an image is a (pseudo) photograph rather than an illustration. Are we dancing on the head of a pin here?
Child pornography does not need to be photographs of actual children; fake pictures (aka pseudo pictures) also count.
DeleteOnce arrested for an indictable offence, the police had the power to search his home under s18 of PACE.
Tony, your vehemence of opinion is nearly matched by your ignorance of the law.
By the way, Tony, if you had read the article, you would have seen this sentence: "Majumder admitted a single count of misconduct in public office [and others]", which is indictable only. Doesn't take the brains of an archbishop, does it.
DeleteJust as well Mr Frost isn't a JP. It'd be most worrying.
DeleteThe Daily Wail Apologists' Club is obviously growing.
DeleteQuite how Mr Frost managed to twist the evidence to arrive at such a perverse conclusion defeats me. It would be hard to think of a less qualified person to look objectively at any situation and gauge compliance, let alone to sit in judgment of his peers than this gentleman.
DeleteTo be fair, this sounds like overkill. In the main he was doing at work what would be legal at home, which is disciplinary or civil, not criminal.
ReplyDeleteAs for the pseudo images of children, well, they speak to character, but there are many countries in the world where possession is not an offence, including I believe the ultra-puritan US of A.
And to think, if only he'd been browsing a magistrate's blog instead. Tsk, tsk.
ReplyDeleteNationalist: I think that possession of kiddie porn in the US can get you nicked. The definition of "kiddie porn" is a broad as the plod would like it to be for the occasion -- a snap of your own sprog dancing innocently in the bath can qualify.
Note that it was possession of "pseudo" images, not actual images. IIRC the US Supreme Court has ruled that pseudo images do not constitute "kiddie porn".
DeleteIf this idiot had possessed actual child pornography I'd have said: string him up!
What is the relevance of citing the US?
DeleteThere are many aspects of the US judicial system that we would not choose to copy; why choose this one?
It was a UK legal clerk in a UK court. You might well assume that UK law would be best applied here.
Stupidity- yes it should be a crime
ReplyDeleteIn England it is an offence under s160 0f the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to possess any indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child.
ReplyDeleteA pseudo photograph is an image whether made by computer graphics or otherwise which appears to be a photograph.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete