Now you see it, now you don't: Digital images and the meaning of 'possession'

Criminal Law Forum

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 205-239

  Clough, Jonathan ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Accessing; Child pornography; Cybercrime; Digital; Possession

Indexed keywords

EID: 45849108729     PISSN: 10468374     EISSN: 15729850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10609-008-9062-0     Document Type: Review

References (141)

1. Home Office and Scottish Executive, Consultation: On the Possession of Extreme Pornographic Material, 5 (2005).
2. While acknowledging there is some concern about the use of the term 'child pornography' and comparisons it might invite with adult pornography, the term continues to be widely used and understood and for convenience will be adopted in this article; Max Taylor and Ethel Quayle, Child Pornography: An Internet Crime, 7 (2003).
3. Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, Organised Criminal Paedophile Activity [3.69] (1995).
4. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Innocent Images National Initiative, at http://www.fbi.gov/page2/feb06/innocent_images_statistics.htm (accessed 5 April 2008).
5. Home Office, supra note 1, p. 6.
6. See, for example, Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution And Child Pornography, adopted and opened for signature, notification and accession 25 May 2000 A/RES/54/263 (entered into force 18 January 2002).
7. For a more detailed discussion of paedophile activity on the Internet see Taylor and Quayle, supra note 2 and Philip Jenkins, Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography on the Internet (2001).
8. Between 1988 and 2004, there were 1831 prosecutions for possession of child pornography in England and Wales; Yaman Akdeniz, Possession and Dispossession: A Critical Assessment of Defences in Cases of Possession of Indecent Photographs of Children Crim L. Rev. 274, 276 (2007).
9. For convenience, in both Australia and the United States the focus will be on federal offences.
10. Home Office, supra note 1.
11. Protection of Children Act 1978 (UK) s.1.
12. Criminal Code of Canada, R.S., 1985, c. C-46 ('Criminal Code (Can)') s.163.1(1).
13. 18 U.S.C.S. § 2256(8).
14. Criminal Code (Can) s.163.1(1) (emphasis added).
15. (2001) 156 C.C.C. (3d) 188.
16. R v. Weir (2001) 156 C.C.C. (3d) 188, 196-197.
17. Oxford English Dictionary, (2nd edn., 1989).
18. U.S. v. Lamb, 945 F. Supp. 441, 451 (N.D. N.Y., 1996).
19. 129 F. 3d. 1069 (9th Cir., 1997). Also see U.S. v. Whiting, 165 F. 3d. 631, 633-634 (8th Cir., 1999).
20. Hockings, 129 F. 3d. at 1071 Also see U.S. v. Smith. 795 F. 2d. 841 (9th Cir., 1989) in which the Court rejected a similar argument in relation to undeveloped film.
21. U.S. v. Whiting, 165 F.3d 631, 633-634 (8th Cir., 1999).
22. Criminal Code (Can), s. 163.1(4), Criminal Justice Act 1988 (UK) s. 160 and 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2252(4) and 2252A(5). Although there is no offence of 'simple possession' at Commonwealth level in Australia, it is an offence in all states; see, for example, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s.91H(3) and Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s. 70(1).
23. Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ('Criminal Code (Cth)') ss. 474.20 and 474.23, Criminal Code (Can) s. 163.1(2)(3), Protection of Children Act 1978 (UK) s.1(1)(c) and 18 U.S.C.S.§§ 2252(3) and 2252A(4).
24. D.P.P. v. Brooks [1974] AC 862, 866 per Lord Diplock, cited with approval in He Kaw Teh v. R (1985) 157 CLR 523, 600 per Dawson J.
25. R v. Boyesen [1982] AC 768, 773-774 per Lord Scarman.
26. Moors v. Burke (1919) 26 CLR 265, Criminal Code (Can), s.4(1) D.P.P. v. Brooks [1974] AC 862, 866 per Lord Diplock and R v. Boyesen [1982] AC 768, 773-774 per Lord Scarman, U.S. v. Tucker. 305 F. 3d. 1193, 1204 (10th Cir., 2002) and U.S. v. Romm, 455 F. 3d. 990, 998 (9th Cir., 2006).
27. Dib v. R (1991) 52 A Crim R 64, 66 per Hunt J.
28. Williams v. Douglas (1949) 78 CLR 521, 527 per Latham CJ, Dixon and McTiernan JJ. 'De facto' possession is also referred to as 'constructive possession' in Canada and the United States; R v. Daniels [2004] NLSCTD 27 at [40] per Fowler J, U.S. v. Tucker, 305 F. 3d. 1193, 1204 (10th Cir., 2002) and Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law, 309 (4th edn., 2003).
29. (1919) 26 CLR 265.
30. Id. at 274 per Isaacs J for the Court.
31. For convenience, the various items which may be used to store digital images will be referred to collectively as 'Storage Devices'.
32. R v. Maio [1989] VR 281, 288 per O'Bryan J, citing D. P. P. v. Brooks [1974] AC 862, 866 per Lord Diplock.
33. 150 F. Supp. 2d. 1263 (D. Utah., 2001).
34. U.S. v. Tucker, 305 F. 3d. 1193, 1197 (10th Cir., 2002).
35. When images are viewed on the Internet, the user's Internet browser routinely stores those images as temporary files in a 'cache' folder in order to allow more rapid subsequent access.
36. U.S. v. Tucker, 150 F. Supp. 2d. 1263, 1268 (D. Utah., 2001).
37. Id. at 1267.
38. U.S. v. Tucker, 305 F. 3d. 1193 (10th Cir., 2002); cert denied, Tucker v. U.S., 537 U.S. 1223 (2003).
39. Id. at 1204-1205 quoting the unrebutted testimony of Special Agent Hooper.
40. 455 F. 3d. 990 (9th Cir., 2006)
41. Id. at 998
42. Id. at 1000. Also see Atkins v. D.P.P.; Goodland v. D.P.P., [2000] 2 All ER 425, 436 per Simon Brown L.J. where it was 'common ground' that there would have been no defence on a charge of possession if the charge was put on the basis of the transient downloading of the image onto the screen, rather than on the basis of its subsequent inadvertent storage in the cache.
43. R v. Porter [2007] 2 All ER 625, 630 per Dyson LJ.
44. U.S. v. Kimler, 335 F. 3d. 1132, 1140 (10th Cir., 2003).
45. (2005) 196 C.C.C. (3d) 253.
46. Id. at 266-267 per Roscoe JA.
47. [2007] 2 All ER 625.
48. Contrary to Protection of Children Act 1978 (UK) s.1(1)(a) and Criminal Justice Act 1988 (UK) s.160(1), respectively.
49. R v. Porter [2007] 2 All ER 625, 631 per Dyson LJ, citing D.P.P. v. Brooks [1974] AC 862 and R v. Boyesen [1982] AC 768.
50. Porter [2007] 2 All ER at 631.
51. Id. at 630.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid.
54. U.S. v. Romm, 455 F. 3d. 990, 995-996, 998 (9th Circ., 2006).
55. Akdeniz, supra note 8 at 284.
56. [2004] NLSCTD 27.
57. Id. at [34] per Fowler J.
58. R v. Daniels (2005) 191 C.C.C. (3d) 393, 397 per Welsh JA.
59. R v. Daniels [2004] NLSCTD 27, at [34] per Fowler J.
60. Id. at [40] per Fowler J and R v. Daniels (2005) 191 C.C.C. (3d) 393, 396 per Welsh JA.
61. Criminal Code (Can) s.3(a)(ii). Constructive possession is discussed further at 3.1.2
62. The extraterritorial operation of the offence of possession is specifically contemplated by Criminal Code (Cth) s.473.2 which provides that a reference to a person having possession or control of data includes a reference to the person having control of data held in a computer that is in the possession of another person (whether inside or outside Australia).
63. R v. Daniels [2004] NLSCTD 27 at [33] and R v. Daniels (2005) 191 C.C.C. (3d) 393, 396.
64. Daniels [2004] NLSCTD at [33].
65. Moors v. Burke (1919) 26 CLR 265, 274 per Isaacs J for the Court, Criminal Code (Can) s.3(a)(i)(ii) and U.S. v. Taylor, 113 F. 3d. 1136, 1144-1145 (10th Cir., 1997).
66. Williams v. Douglas (1949) 78 CLR 521, 527 per Latham CJ, Dixon and McTiernan JJ.
67. (2000) 27 SR (WA) 148.
68. Moors v. Burke (1919) 26 CLR 265, 274 per Isaacs J for the Court.
69. Id. at 274.
70. Id. at 274-275.
71. See part 4.
72. R v. Boyesen [1982] AC 768, 774 per Lord Scarman. Also see He Kaw Teh v. R (1985) 157 CLR 523, 539 per Gibbs CJ (with whom Mason J agreed), at 585 per Brennan J and at 599-600 per Dawson J; R v. Beaver [1957] S.C.R. 531, 541-542 per Cartwright J; U.S. v. Lacy, 119 F. 3d. 742, 747-748 (9th Cir., 1997), U.S. v. Tucker, 305 F. 3d. 1193, 1204 (10th Cir., 2002) and U.S. v. Romm, 455 F. 3d. 990, 1003 (9th Circ., 2006).
73. These factors are discussed in more detail in the context of actual custody (3.1.1) and intention to possess (part 3).
74. (1997) 18 WAR 394, 402-403 per Ipp J.
75. Also see R v. D.E.W.B. [2003] A. J. No. 1471 at [26] per Fradsham Prov Ct J.
76. [2000] 2 All ER 425, cited with approval in R v. Collier [2004] All ER 82 at [20] per Hooper LJ and Rv. Porter [2007] 2 All ER 625, 629-630 per Dyson LJ.
77. Atkins v. D.P.P.; Goodland v. D.P.P. [2000] 2 All ER 425, 436-437 per Simon Brown LJ.
78. 411 F.3d. 1198 (10th Circ., 2005).
79. See 3.1.1.
80. U.S. v. Bass 411 F. 3d. 1198, 1201-1202 (10th Cir., 2005).
81. Ibid.
82. Id. at 1208.
83. See part 4.
84. R v. Martindale [1986] 3 All ER 25, 26 per Lane LCJ.
85. R v. Buswell [1972] 1 All ER 75, 78 per Philimore LJ.
86. McCalla v. R (1988) 87 Cr App R 372, 379 per May LJ. Also see R v. Buswell [1972] 1 All ER 75, 78 per Philimore LJ.
87. (1998) 71 SASR 175.
88. Id. at 180 per Bleby J.
89. Id. at 181.
90. Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1968] 3 All ER 422 and Thabo Meli v. R [1954] 1 All ER 373.
91. Limitation periods should no longer present an obstacle as possession of child pornography is now an indictable offence in each jurisdiction.
92. http://www.guidancesoftware.com/lawenforcement/index.asp (accessed 5 April 2008)
93. [1972] 1 All ER 75.
94. R v. Buswell [1972] 1 All ER 75, 78 per Philimore LJ.
95. Atkins v. D.P.P.; Goodland v. D.P.P. [2000] 2 All ER 425, 437 per Simon Brown LJ.
96. Also see Attorney-General's Reference No. 89 of 2004 [2004] EWCA 3222 at [35] per Kennedy LJ.
97. 150 F. Supp. 2d. 1263 (D. Utah., 2001).
98. Id. at 1268 (emphasis added).
99. [1999] QB 65; applied in Police v. Kennedy (1998) 71 SASR 175, 185 per Bleby J.
100. It seems that the defendant must be aware of the indecent nature of the images; see R v. Porter [2007] 2 All ER 625, 632 per Dyson LJ.
101. R v. Land [1999] QB 65, 70 per Judge LJ.
102. Ibid.
103. He Kaw Teh v. R (1985) 157 CLR 523, 585 per Brennan J.
104. Criminal Code (Cth) S.4.1(1)(c).
105. Id. s 5.6.(2)
106. Id. s 5.4(1)
107. U.S. v. Tucker, 150 F. Supp. 2d. 1263 (D. Utah., 2001), applying the decision of the Supreme Court in U.S. v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994). Also see U.S. v. Lacy, 119 F. 3d. 742, 747-748 (9th Cir., 1997) and U.S. v. Romm 455 F. 3d. 990, 1003 (9th Cir., 2006).
108. R v. Pecciarich (1995) 22 O.R. (3d) 748, 757 per Sparrow Prov Div J, quoting Phipson on Evidence (13th edn., 1982).
109. Bounds v. R [2005] WASCA 1 at [22] per Steytler J.
110. [2005] 64 W.C.B. (2d) 50.
111. Id. at [8] per Letorneau JA.
112. That it is possible that in seeking to download a particular file, another file may be received by mistake was accepted in R v. Missions (2005) 196 C.C.C. (3d) 253, 258 per Roscoe JA.
113. R v. Boyce (1976) 15 SASR 40, 44 per Bray CJ.
114. The accused bears the legal burden of proving these defences, the standard of proof being on the balance of probabilities; R v. Collier [2004] All ER 82 at [18] per Hooper LJ.
115. Protection of Children Act 1978 (UK) s.1(4)(b) and Criminal Justice Act 1988 (UK) s.160(2)(b) .Torebut this defence, theprosecutionmust prove that the defendantknewthat the images were both indecent and of a child; R v. Collier [2004] All ER 82 at [40] per Hooper LJ.
116. He Kaw Teh v. R (1985) 157 CLR 523, 582 per Brennan J and at 599 per Dawson J, R v. Beaver [1957] S.C.R. 531, 541-542 per Cartwright J and R v. Kocsis (2001) 157 C.C.C. (3d) 564, 571 per MacPherson JA, cited with approval in R v. Daniels (2005) 191 C.C.C. (3d) 393, 396 per Welsh JA.
117. (1976) 15 SASR 40, 396 per Bray CJ.
118. (1978) 41 C.C.C. (2d) 282.
119. Id. at 287 per Hughes CJ. Also see R v. York 193 C.C.C. (3d) 331, 336-338 per Oppal JA.
120. He Kaw Teh v. R (1985) 157 CLR 523, 539 per Gibbs CJ.
121. Id. at 588 per Brennan J.
122. Protection of Children Act 1978 (UK) s.1(4). What constitutes a 'legitimate reason' for these purposes is a question of fact for the jury; Atkins v. D.P.P.; Goodland v. D.P.P. [2000] 2 All ER 425.
123. Criminal Code (Can) s.163(3), which applies by virtue of s.163.1(7).
124. Paedophile quoted in Taylor and Quayle, supra note 2, p. 93.
125. [2001] S.C.R. 45.
126. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.2(b).
127. R. v. Sharpe [2001] S.C.R. 45, 97-99 per McLachlin CJ. Also see Taylor and Quayle, supra note 2, pp. 24-25. Similar factors were also considered by the United States Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition 535 U.S. 234 (2002), although the Court held that these factors were not sufficient to deny first amendment protection to material which did not involve actual children.
128. Also see R v. Travell (1997) 1 Cr App R (S) 52, R v. Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394, 403 per Ipp J, R v. Land [1999] QB 65, R v. Jones (1999) 108 A Crim R 50, 52 per Kennedy J, R v. Curtain [2001] VSCA 156 at [25] per Vincent JA, R v. Coffey [2003] 6 VR 543, 552 per Callaway JA with whom Buchanan and Eames JA agreed, Badcock v. White [2004] TASSC 59 at [18] per Crawford J and R v. Quick (2004) 148 A Crim R 51, 67-68 per Redlich J.
129. Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (UK) s.1.
130. Criminal Code (Cth) ss. 474.19(1)(a)(i)(ii)(2) and 474.22(1)(a)(i)(ii)(2).
131. Criminal Code (Can) s.164.1(4.1).
132. Criminal Code (Cth) s.473.1.
133. Criminal Code (Can) s.164.1(4.2).
134. Criminal Code (Cth) ss.474.19(1)(a)(i)(ii) and 474.22(1)(a)(i)(ii) and Criminal Code (Can) ss.164.1(4.1).
135. 18 U.S.C §§ 2252(a)(2) and 2252A(a)(2).
136. 18 U.S.C §§ 2252(b)(1) and 2252A(b)(1).
137. Tony Krone, International Police Operations Against Online Child Pornography, Trends and Issues in Criminal Justice No. 296, Australian Institute of Criminology 4-5 (2005). For a more critical discussion of such techniques, including whether they in fact exist, see Jenkins, supra note 2, pp. 159-164.
138. R v. Daniels [2004] NLSCTD 27 at [37] per Fowler J.
139. Defined in s. 99 to include child pornography.
140. Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, E.T.S. No. 185 (Budapest, 23 Novembter 2001).
141. Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, Explanatory Memorandum, at [98].