CASE STUDIES

Being involved in a case relating to indecent image or sexual communication with a child can be very stressful. The long and uncertain process can be intrusive and emotionally traumatising, affecting every part of your life.

 

If you, a family member or a friend are accused of an indecent image or sexual communication offence then seeking specialist legal advice at any stage can dramatically improve the outcome of a case.

​

Below I have provide case studies from real cases I have dealt with over the last few years to give you real information on outcomes and sentencing. With the right preparation, representations and advocacy I aim to achieve the right result in your case.

​​

Police station investigation case studies

​​

Police v CH 2025

The client was arrested at home for suspected possession and distribution of indecent images of children. The client used the duty solicitor and gave a no comment interview and was released on bail. The client and his family booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 5 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. Following forensic examination of his devices the Police found a low number of category A, B and C indecent images of children. I made representations to the Police that it was not in the interest of justice to prosecute my client, and a Police Caution was negotiated and accepted for the indecent images, and the case did not proceed to Court. 

 

Police v TR 2024

The client was visited at home for suspected possession and distribution of indecent images of children and devices were seized without an interview. Following forensic examination of his devices the Police found a low number of category A, B and C indecent images of children. The client instructed me to represent him, and I obtained disclosure from the Police and arranged to meet my client to discuss the case. Prior to the interview I made representations to the Police that it was not in the interest of justice to prosecute my client, and a Police Caution was negotiated. At the interview we put forward an acceptance of responsibility for the images and highlighted the rehabilitation work that had been completed. Following the interview the Caution was given, which closed the case without a conviction at Court.

 

Police v MI 2024

The client was invited to a voluntary interview at the Police Station on suspicion of multiple breaches of his SHPO and notification requirements. The client instructed me to represent him, and I obtained disclosure from the Police and arranged to meet my client to discuss the case. At the interview we put forward a reasonable excuse defence to all allegations and refused the offer of a Police Caution. I was able to make written representations that there was insufficient evidence which led to the case being closed with no further action being taken. 

​​

Police v SB 2024

The client was arrested at home for suspected possession and distribution of indecent images of children. The client used the duty solicitor and gave a no comment interview and was released on bail conditions that stopped him from returning home to live with his wife and children. The client booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 8 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. I was able to vary my client’s bail conditions so he could return home to live with his family. Forensic examination of devices found evidence of indecent images on a mobile phone; however, I was able to make written representations that the accessing of the indecent images was unintentional, leading to the case being closed with no further action being taken.

​

Police v RD 2024

The client was arrested at home in distressing circumstances after being confronted by a vigilante group for suspected attempted sexual communication with a child under 16 and inciting a child to engage in a sexual activity. The client used the duty solicitor and gave a no comment interview and was released on bail. The client booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 9 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. We requested a re-interview with the Police so that my client could put forward his defence that he did not believe he was communicating with a child under 16, this was done in a written format to protect my client from intrusive questioning. Following forensic examination of devices, I was able to make written representations that the vigilante group had acted dishonestly to entrap my client, and that my client had undertaken privately funded therapy, leading to the case being closed with no further action being taken. 

​​​

Police v AK 2024

The client was arrested at home for arranging sexual activity with a child via online communication with another adult. The client was unrepresented and spoke in interview to accept the conversation and was released on bail conditions that stopped him from returning home to live with his wife and children. The client booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 6 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. I was able to vary my client’s bail conditions so he could return home to live with his family. Forensic examination of devices found no evidence of indecent images and I was able to make written representations that the communication could be dealt with by giving my client a Conditional Caution rather than progressing the case to Court. The Conditional Caution was agreed, and the case was closed. 

​

Police v JC 2023

The client was visited at home for suspected possession and distribution of indecent images of children and devices were seized without an interview. The client and his family booked an appointment with me and then instructed me to act. Over the next 14 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. Forensic examination of devices found a low number of indecent images of children and a voluntary interview was arranged. At the interview we put forward an acceptance of responsibility and highlighted the rehabilitation work that had been completed. Following the interview, I made written representations to the CPS that it was not in the interest of justice to prosecute my client, and a Conditional Caution was negotiated and accepted, which closed the case without a conviction at Court.

​

Police v RH 2023

The client was arrested at home for a suspected obscene publication offence and attempting to encourage or assist the commission of a sexual activity with a child via an online conversation with an undercover Police Officer. The client used the duty solicitor and gave an account in interview to accept the communication and was released on bail conditions that stopped him from returning home to live with his wife and children. The client booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 7 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. After some time, I was able to vary my client’s bail conditions so he could return home to live with his family. Forensic examination of devices found no evidence of indecent images and I was able to make written representations that there was insufficient evidence, and it was not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case as he had undertaken a course with Safer Lives, leading to the case being closed with no further action being taken.

​​​

Police v CC 2023

The client was arrested at home for suspected possession and distribution of indecent images of children. The client was unrepresented and spoke in interview to accept downloading indecent images and was released on bail conditions that stopped him from returning home to live with his wife and children. The client booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 6 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. Once Social Services had done assessments, I was able to vary my client’s bail conditions so he could return home to live with his family. Despite the client admitting the offence in interview the forensic examination of devices found no evidence of indecent images and I was able to make written representations that there was insufficient evidence to charge my client, leading to the case being closed with no further action being taken. 

 

Police v JC 2023

The client was visited at home for suspected possession and distribution of indecent images of children and devices were seized without an interview. The client booked an appointment with me and then instructed me to act. Over the next 12 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. Forensic examination of devices found an indecent image of a child and a voluntary interview was arranged. At the interview we put forward an explanation that it was of a family member in innocent circumstances. Following the interview, I made written representations to the Police that it was not in the interest of justice to prosecute my client, leading to the case being closed with no further action being taken. 

 

Police v RO 2023

The client was invited to a voluntary interview at the Police Station on suspicion of breaching his SHPO and notification requirements. The client instructed me to represent him, and I obtained disclosure from the Police and arranged to meet my client to discuss the case. At the interview we put forward a reasonable excuse defence to all allegations and refused the offer of a Caution. I was able to make written representations that there was insufficient evidence which led to the case being closed with no further action being taken. 

 

Police v FS 2023

The client was arrested in stressful circumstances after being confronted by a vigilante group for a suspected attempt to arrange the commission of a child sexual offence, grooming, possession of indecent images of children, and attempted sexual communication with a child under 16. The client used the duty solicitor and gave a no comment interview and was released on bail. The client booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 12 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. Following forensic examination of devices, I was able to make written representations that the vigilante group had failed to provide admissible evidence and had acted dishonestly to entrap my client, and that my client had undertaken privately funded therapy, leading to the case being closed with no further action being taken. 

​

Police v PE 2023

The client was arrested at home for suspected possession and distribution of indecent images of children. The client used the duty solicitor and gave an account in interview to accept responsibility for accessing indecent images and was released on bail.  The client booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 5 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. Despite the client admitting the offence forensic examination of devices found only limited evidence of accessing indecent images and I was able to make written representations that there was insufficient evidence to charge my client, and it was not in the interests of justice considering the considerable rehabilitation work he had done with a therapist to address his porn addiction, leading to the case being closed with no further action being taken. 

 

Police v SD 2023

The client was arrested at home for suspected possession and distribution of indecent images of children. The client used the duty solicitor and gave a no comment interview and was released on bail. The client and his family booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 14 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. Forensic examination of devices found only limited evidence of accessing indecent images and I was able to negotiate with the Police for devices to be destroyed rather than further examined, leading to the case being closed with no further action being taken. 

​

Police v CC 2023

The client was visited at home for suspected possession and distribution of indecent images of children and devices were seized without an interview. The client and his family booked an appointment with me and then instructed me to act. Over the next 14 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. Forensic examination of devices found a low number of category A, B and C indecent images of children and a sexual communication with child under 16 where images were shared. A voluntary interview was arranged. At the interview we put forward an acceptance of responsibility and highlighted the rehabilitation work that had been completed. Following the interview, I made written representations to the CPS that it was not in the interest of justice to prosecute my client, and a conditional caution was negotiated and accepted, which closed the case without a conviction at Court. 

​

Police v FG 2022

The client was arrested at home for suspected possession and distribution of indecent images of children. The client used the duty solicitor and gave a no comment interview and was released on bail. The client and his family booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 10 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. Forensic examination of devices found only limited evidence of accessing indecent images and I was able to negotiate with the Police for devices to be destroyed rather than further examined, leading to the case being closed with no further action being taken. 

 

Police v VV 2022

The client was arrested in distressing circumstances after being confronted by a vigilante group for suspected attempted sexual communication with a child under 16. The client used the duty solicitor and gave a no comment interview and was released on bail. The client booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 6 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. We requested a re-interview with the Police so that my client could put forward his defence that he did not believe he was communicating with a child under 16, this was done in a written format to protect my client from intrusive questioning. Following forensic examination of devices, I was I was able to make written representations that the vigilante group had acted dishonestly to entrap and assault my client, and that my client had undertaken privately funded therapy, leading to the case being closed with no further action being taken. 

 

Police v OT 2022

The client was arrested at home on suspicion of obscene publication offences with electronic devices being seized. The client was unrepresented and spoke in interview to accept the conversation and was released on bail. The client booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 6 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. Forensic examination of devices found no further evidence and I was able to make written representations that it was not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case as he had undertaken extensive rehabilitation work, leading to the case being closed with no further action being taken.

 

Police v RM 2021

The client was arrested on the suspicion of rape and possession class B drugs. The client used the duty solicitor and gave a no comment interview and was released on bail. The client booked an appointment with me and then transferred his case. Over the next 9 months I took my client’s instructions and proactively engaged with the Police Officer in charge on a regular basis as part of the pre-charge engagement protocol and updated my client on progress. I was able to make written representations in respect of the evidence and the case was closed with no further action being taken. 

​​

Court case studies

​​

R v DW 2025

Case was at court for attempted sexual communication with a child and attempting to arrange a penetrative sexual assault of a child. Despite imprisonment being inevitable on the charges the most serious charge of attempting to arrange a penetrative sexual assault on a child was withdrawn by the CPS following written defence submissions and negotiation and the remaining sexual communication charge was mitigated to a 6-month custodial sentence suspended for 24-months with 150 hours of unpaid work and 30 rehabilitation sessions with the Probation Service. The SHPO was also negotiated and varied in the client's favour to remove restrictive prohibitions. 

 

R v JH 2025

Case was at court for making of 5 category and 70 category C indecent images of children, and the possession of 250 prohibited images and 60 extreme pornographic images. Client was advised to plead not guilty and instruct a privately funded forensic expert to prepare a report and following service of the report and written representations the CPS offered no evidence to all charges before the case got to trial and the case was closed.

​

R v DM 2024

Case was at court for attempted sexual communication with a child, attempting to incite a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity and causing a child to watch sexual activity. Despite imprisonment being the starting point in the sentencing guidelines, the case was mitigated to a 16-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with 150 hours of unpaid work and 30 rehabilitation sessions with the Probation Service. The defence proposed SHPO that excluded restrictive contact prohibitions was agreed by the Judge. 

 

R v ST 2024

Case was at court for 2 attempted sexual communication offences with 2 separate children. Despite imprisonment being the most likely option, the case was mitigated to a 12-month community order with 150 hours of unpaid work and 20 rehabilitation sessions with the Probation Service. The SHPO was argued at length and prohibitions were varied in favour of the client to ensure he could have unsupervised contact with children.

​

R v RM 2024

Case was at court for making of category C indecent images of children. The case had been charged and proceeded to Court but with targeted representations to the CPS the case was reverted back to the Police Station and a simple Police Caution was given.

​

R v AM 2024

Case was at court for making 250 category A, B, and C indecent images of children and the possession of prohibited images of a child. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 10-month sentence, suspended for 24-months with 100 hours of unpaid work and 35 days of rehabilitation work with probation. The prosecution proposed SHPO was varied in line with defence submissions. 

​​

R v JY 2024

Case was at court for making over 2,200 category A, over 1,700 category B, and over 2,100 C indecent images of children, the possession of prohibited images of a child and the possession of extreme pornographic images. Despite immediate imprisonment being the starting point for such a high number of images, the case was mitigated to a 16-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with 150 hours of unpaid work and 50 days of rehabilitation work with probation. The SHPO was argued at length and varied in favour of the client to ensure it was proportionate.

​​

R v DM 2024

Case was at court for making category A, category B and category C indecent images of children. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 6-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with 42 days of rehabilitation and 120 hours of unpaid work. The SHPO was negotiated to ensure it was proportionate.

​​

R v MM 2024

Case was at court for attempted sexual communication with a child. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 24-month Community Order with 240 hours of unpaid work and 30 supervision sessions with probation. After a contested SHPO application, the SHPO was not imposed as the Magistrates agreed with the defence submissions that it was unnecessary and disproportionate.

​

R v TS 2024

Case was at court for attempting to cause a child to watch images of sexual activity, attempting to arrange/facilitate the commission of sexual activity with a child, attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, the making of over 3,650 category A, over 2,250 category B, and over 10,500 category C indecent images of children, possession of prohibited images of a child and possession of extreme pornographic images. Despite immediate imprisonment being the likely sentence the case was mitigated to a 20-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with 30 days of rehabilitation. The SHPO was also negotiated and varied in the client's favour.

 

R v BL 2024

Case was at court for attempted sexual communication with a child. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to an 8-month custodial sentence, suspended for 15 months with 40 days of rehabilitation with 120 hours of unpaid work for the community. The SHPO was also negotiated and amended in the client’s favour to remove unnecessary and disproportionate prohibitions.

​

R v DL 2024

Case was at court for possession of extreme pornographic images. Despite all options being available to the Magistrates, the case was mitigated to a small fine.

​

R v MW 2024

Case was at court for making over 200 category A, over 190 category B, and over 700 category C indecent images of children. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 12-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with 25 days of rehabilitation with 150 hours of unpaid work for the community. The SHPO was also negotiated to be proportionate to the case.

 

R v GW 2024

Case was at court for attempted sexual communication with a child. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 4-month custodial sentence, suspended for 18-months with 40 days of rehabilitation but avoiding unpaid work or electronically monitored curfew. The SHPO was contested and the Judge agreed with the defence position and removed unnecessary and disproportionate prohibitions.

​

R v CO 2024

Case was at court for making over 500 category A, over 500 category B, and over 350 category C indecent images of children. Despite significant imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to an 18-month community order, with 30 days of rehabilitation. The SHPO was also negotiated to ensure it was proportionate to the case. Case involved use of specialist sexual risk assessment and psychological report, due to client’s learning difficulties and disabilities.

 

R v MW 2024

Case was at court for making over 100 category A, over 200 category B, and over 850 category C indecent images of children, the more serious charges of distribution of category A , B and C indecent images of children and the attempted sexual communication with a child. Despite significant imprisonment being the likely sentence, the case was mitigated to a 24-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with 25 days of rehabilitation. The SHPO was also negotiated in advance to ensure it was proportionate to the case.

​

R v RB 2024

Case was at court for making over 250 category A, over 150 category B, and over 900 category C indecent images of children. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to an 8-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with 35 days of rehabilitation and 150 hours of unpaid work for the community. The SHPO was also contested and prohibitions varied to ensure it was proportionate to the case.

​

R v PW 2024

Case was at court for 2 offences of sexual communication with a child, one real child and one attempted offence. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 12-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with 30 days rehabilitation and a 4-month electronically monitored daily curfew. SHPO was also negotiated to ensure it was proportionate to the case.

 

R v PD 2024

Case was at court for attempted voyeurism involving a child. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a Community Order for 24-months with up to 40 supervision sessions and 150 hours of unpaid work. The proposed SHPO was also argued and varied to ensure it was proportionate to the case.

​

R v CB 2024

Case was at court for voyeurism, the making of category B and category C indecent images of children, and the distribution of category C indecent images of children. Despite imprisonment being the starting point for each offence, the case was mitigated to a 52-week custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with requirements to complete an accredited course and 20 days of rehabilitation. The SHPO was negotiated to ensure it was proportionate to the case.

​

R v SM 2024

Case was at court for making over 80 category A, over 50 category B, and over 50 category C indecent images of children and possession of prohibited images of a child. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 17-week custodial sentence, suspended for 12-months, with 40 days of rehabilitation and 60 hours of unpaid work for the community. The SHPO was also negotiated in advance to ensure it was proportionate to the case.

 

R v AF 2024

Case was at court for distribution of category A and B indecent images of children, the making of category A, category B, and category C indecent images of children, and the possession of extreme images. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 20-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months, with 40 days of rehabilitation and 80 hours of unpaid work for the community. The SHPO was also contested and prohibitions varied to ensure it was proportionate to the case.

​

R v TS 2024

Case was at court for making category A, category B and category C indecent images of children. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 120-day custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months, with 30 days of rehabilitation and 200 hours of unpaid work for the community. The SHPO was also varied upon application to ensure it was proportionate to the case.

​

R v AF 2023

Case was at court for distribution of 20 category A, 5 category B and 5 category C indecent images of children, and the making of 220 category A, 140 category B and 90 category C indecent images of children. Despite imprisonment being the starting point in the sentencing guidelines, the case was mitigated to a 21-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months, with 120 hours of unpaid leave and 40 days of rehabilitation. The SHPO was negotiated and amended in favour of the client.

 

R v LI 2023

Case was at court for making of 1,000 category A, 1,300 category B and 2,500 category C indecent images of children, and the possession of extreme pornographic images. Despite imprisonment being the most likely outcome based on the sentencing guidelines, the case was mitigated to a 24-month Community Order with a requirement to undertake a mental health treatment order and 40 days of rehabilitation. A suspended sentence was not imposed. The SHPO was extensively negotiated and amended accordingly in Court.

​

R v JS 2023

Case was at court for distribution of category B and category C indecent images of children, and the making of category A, category B, and category C indecent images of children, and the possession of prohibited images of children. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to an 18-month community order, with 30 days of rehabilitation and 80 hours of unpaid work for the community. The SHPO was also negotiated and substantially reduced to ensure it was proportionate to the case.

 

R v GT 2023

Case was at court for distribution of category C indecent images of children, the making of over 400 category A, over 300 category B, and over 550 category C indecent images of children. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to an 11-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months, with 40 days of rehabilitation and 240 hours of unpaid work for the community. The SHPO was negotiated and revised accordingly.

 

R v RM 2023

Case was at court for making category B and category C indecent images of children, and possession of both prohibited and extreme images. A defence instructed forensic expert was instructed to review the data which led to the CPS offering no evidence to the indecent image charges, closing that element of the case. For the prohibited and extreme images, the minimal punishment of a conditional discharge was given, and no SHPO or notification requirements were imposed. 

 

R v CR 2023

Case was at court for distribution of category A, category B and category C indecent images of children, possession of category A, category B and category C indecent images of children, and possession of both prohibited and extreme images. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 24-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months, with 30 days of rehabilitation and a curfew. No SHPO was imposed after successful defence representations.

 

R v CO 2023

Case was at court for making over 20 category A, over 20 category B,and over 30 category C indecent images of children. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 6-month custodial sentence, suspended for 21-months, with 40 days of rehabilitation and 200 hours of unpaid work for the community. The SHPO was negotiated to ensure it was proportionate to the case. 

​​

R v JB 2023

Case was at court for making over 60 category A, over 10 category B, and over 15 category C indecent images of children, and possession of both prohibited and extreme images. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 12-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months, with 30 days of rehabilitation. The SHPO was contested and negotiated in advance to ensure it was proportionate to the case.

 

R v RC 2023

Case was at court for making category A and C indecent images of children and possession of extreme pornographic images. A defence instructed forensic expert was instructed to review the data which led to the CPS offering no evidence on all charges, and therefore a SHPO and notification requirements were not imposed.

​

R v RS 2023

Case was at court for making over 700 category A, B, and C indecent images of children. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to a 5-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months, with 40 days rehabilitation. The SHPO was contested to ensure it was proportionate to the case.

 

R v SH 2023

Case was at court for possession of category A, B and C indecent images of children following 4 separate arrests due to continuing offending behaviour. Despite imprisonment being the starting point, the case was mitigated to an 18-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months, with 20 days rehabilitation and an accredited programme. The SHPO was negotiated to ensure it was proportionate to the case.​​​​

​

R v DG 2022

Case was at court for making of 80 category A, 210 category B and 90,000 category C indecent images of children. Despite imprisonment being the most likely outcome due to the very high number of images the case was mitigated to a 10-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with a requirement to only complete 25 days of rehabilitation with no unpaid work for the community. The SHPO was argued, and the Judge agreed with the defence and did not impose it. 

 

R v MV 2022

Case was at court for possession of approximately 200 category A, B and C indecent images of children. Despite imprisonment being the starting point in the sentencing guidelines the case was mitigated to a 10-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with a requirement to complete the iHorizons Course and 30 days of rehabilitation. The SHPO was negotiated to ensure excessive prohibitions were removed and amended. 

 

R v TM 2022

Case was at Court for distribution and possession of category A, B and C indecent images of children, attempted sexual communication with a child under 16, attempting to cause a child to look at images of sexual activity and attempting to cause a child to engage in sexual activity. Despite imprisonment being the most likely outcome the case was mitigated to a 24-month custodial sentence, suspended for 24-months with a requirement to complete the iHorizon Programme and 30 days of rehabilitation and 120 hours of unpaid work. The SHPO was extensively negotiated and amended to ensure it was proportionate to the case.