This poor old man is going to be seriously inconvenienced for the next
five years for "photographs of stills from a legitimate naturist
film."

His defence solicitor wasn't much help, with this talk of stopping him
from taking an "unnatural interest in young children."

How is that supposed to work?

News article:
================================================
PENSIONER, 69, HAD INDECENT CHILD PICS
By Jane O'Neill

Sunderland Echo, UK: 14 July 2008
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Pensioner-69-had-indecent-child.4284836.jp
[ http://tinyurl.com/5swj8m ]

A pensioner has been given a sex offender's order after admitting
possessing indecent images of a child.

Gordon Reeves, 69, has been banned from talking to children or being
alone with them after handing in his disposable camera, containing two
suspect images, to a photo-processing shop in Southport.

Staff raised the alarm after spotting pictures showing a
partially-clothed child. The image appeared to be on a TV screen,
which Reeves had photographed.

Police were called and a search of Reeves' home uncovered naturist
magazines, sex aids and a pair of girl's briefs and a bra.

He went on to admit four charges of making indecent images of a child
between March 15 and April 14 this year.

Prosecutor Rachael Dodsworth told Sunderland Magistrates' Court that
the images were of the lowest offence level and appeared to be
photographs of stills from a legitimate naturist film.

The court heard Reeves had a previous conviction of a similar nature,
committed in June 2006, and had been removed from the sex offenders'
register at the end of August last year.

Defence solicitor Gerry Bass said Reeves, from Sunderland city centre,
was in very bad health, taking 13 tablets a day for asthma, epilepsy
and osteoporosis, and had recently been released from intensive care
after suffering a stroke.

He urged magistrates not to impose a curfew on Reeves, saying: "What
has got to be stopped is him taking an unatural interest in young
children.

"He should not be prohibited from enjoying the rest of his life,
providing while he is, he is not taking naughty images."

Magistrates imposed a two-year community order with two years'
supervision.

Reeves will remain on the sex offenders' register for five years, and
was made the subject of a five-year sex offences prevention order.

The order bans the 69-year-old from approaching anyone under the age
of 18, except unavoidable contact in retail premises or public places,
possessing images of children under 18, unless they are lawfully
obtained by purchasing publications, and not to occupy any premises
with a child under 18, unless they are accompanied by an adult. He
must also pay costs of £100.

Magistrates ordered forfeiture and destruction of the indecent images.

On Jul 14, 11:06 am, Cub Reporter  wrote:
> This poor old man is going to be seriously inconvenienced for the next
> five years for "photographs of stills from a legitimate naturist
> film."
>
> His defence solicitor wasn't much help, with this talk of stopping him
> from taking an "unnatural interest in young children."
>
> How is that supposed to work?
>
> News article:
> ================================================
> PENSIONER, 69, HAD INDECENT CHILD PICS
> By Jane O'Neill
>
> Sunderland Echo, UK: 14 July 2008http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Pensioner-69-had-indecent-child.42...
> [http://tinyurl.com/5swj8m]
>
> A pensioner has been given a sex offender's order after admitting
> possessing indecent images of a child.
>
> Gordon Reeves, 69, has been banned from talking to children or being
> alone with them after handing in his disposable camera, containing two
> suspect images, to a photo-processing shop in Southport.
>
> Staff raised the alarm after spotting pictures showing a
> partially-clothed child. The image appeared to be on a TV screen,
> which Reeves had photographed.
>
> Police were called and a search of Reeves' home uncovered naturist
> magazines, sex aids and a pair of girl's briefs and a bra.
>
> He went on to admit four charges of making indecent images of a child
> between March 15 and April 14 this year.
>
> Prosecutor Rachael Dodsworth told Sunderland Magistrates' Court that
> the images were of the lowest offence level and appeared to be
> photographs of stills from a legitimate naturist film.
>
> The court heard Reeves had a previous conviction of a similar nature,
> committed in June 2006, and had been removed from the sex offenders'
> register at the end of August last year.
>
> Defence solicitor Gerry Bass said Reeves, from Sunderland city centre,
> was in very bad health, taking 13 tablets a day for asthma, epilepsy
> and osteoporosis, and had recently been released from intensive care
> after suffering a stroke.
>
> He urged magistrates not to impose a curfew on Reeves, saying: "What
> has got to be stopped is him taking an unatural interest in young
> children.
>
> "He should not be prohibited from enjoying the rest of his life,
> providing while he is, he is not taking naughty images."
>
> Magistrates imposed a two-year community order with two years'
> supervision.
>
> Reeves will remain on the sex offenders' register for five years, and
> was made the subject of a five-year sex offences prevention order.
>
> The order bans the 69-year-old from approaching anyone under the age
> of 18, except unavoidable contact in retail premises or public places,
> possessing images of children under 18, unless they are lawfully
> obtained by purchasing publications, and not to occupy any premises
> with a child under 18, unless they are accompanied by an adult. He
> must also pay costs of £100.
>
> Magistrates ordered forfeiture and destruction of the indecent images.

The defence do that, so he appears contrite - whether he is or not.
Helps in sentencing.

In this case, I would have gone 'not guilty' ...  it is not like he
had a clean history to protect, but he is an old boy, and who needs
the hassle of what could have been given?

WM

Cub Reporter wrote:

> 
> The order bans the 69-year-old from approaching anyone under the age
> of 18, except unavoidable contact in retail premises or public places,
> possessing images of children under 18, unless they are lawfully
> obtained by purchasing publications, and not to occupy any premises
> with a child under 18, unless they are accompanied by an adult. 

Is thsi enshrined in law somewhere or do magistrates just make
these orders up as they go along?

On Jul 14, 11:23 am, Animal Crackers 
wrote:
> Cub Reporter wrote:
>
> > The order bans the 69-year-old from approaching anyone under the age
> > of 18, except unavoidable contact in retail premises or public places,
> > possessing images of children under 18, unless they are lawfully
> > obtained by purchasing publications, and not to occupy any premises
> > with a child under 18, unless they are accompanied by an adult.
>
> Is thsi enshrined in law somewhere or do magistrates just make
> these orders up as they go along?

They have the authority to add what they wish, within 'The Law'. It is
a civil order.

Only breaking it is criminal.

You may be interested to know, that 'Violent Offender Orders' (VOOs)
came into operation, today.

Of course, what is 'violent'?

WM

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> On Jul 14, 11:23 am, Animal Crackers 
> wrote:
>> Cub Reporter wrote:
>>
>>> The order bans the 69-year-old from approaching anyone under the age
>>> of 18, except unavoidable contact in retail premises or public places,
>>> possessing images of children under 18, unless they are lawfully
>>> obtained by purchasing publications, and not to occupy any premises
>>> with a child under 18, unless they are accompanied by an adult.
>> Is thsi enshrined in law somewhere or do magistrates just make
>> these orders up as they go along?
> 
> They have the authority to add what they wish, within 'The Law'. It is
> a civil order.
> 
> Only breaking it is criminal.
> 


Does the defendant have to agree to the order as in a bind over?

On Jul 14, 12:19 pm, Animal Crackers 
wrote:
> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 11:23 am, Animal Crackers 
> > wrote:
> >> Cub Reporter wrote:
>
> >>> The order bans the 69-year-old from approaching anyone under the age
> >>> of 18, except unavoidable contact in retail premises or public places,
> >>> possessing images of children under 18, unless they are lawfully
> >>> obtained by purchasing publications, and not to occupy any premises
> >>> with a child under 18, unless they are accompanied by an adult.
> >> Is thsi enshrined in law somewhere or do magistrates just make
> >> these orders up as they go along?
>
> > They have the authority to add what they wish, within 'The Law'. It is
> > a civil order.
>
> > Only breaking it is criminal.
>
> Does the defendant have to agree to the order as in a bind over?

No, it is mandatory, but may be appealed.

Sexual offences prevention orders
http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Sexual_offences_prevention_orders

WM

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:23:10 +0100, Animal Crackers
 wrote:

>Cub Reporter wrote:
>
>> 
>> The order bans the 69-year-old from approaching anyone under the age
>> of 18, except unavoidable contact in retail premises or public places,
>> possessing images of children under 18, unless they are lawfully
>> obtained by purchasing publications, and not to occupy any premises
>> with a child under 18, unless they are accompanied by an adult. 
>
>Is thsi enshrined in law somewhere or do magistrates just make
>these orders up as they go along?

And WTF should it be set at 18..FFS .Crazy friggin' country this is
...
ps. yea I know about the "under 18 is a child in certain circs thing"

What about if he had grandkids ???

> and not to occupy any premises
> with a child under 18, unless they are accompanied by an adult.

As he is an adult, there would that would appear to a bit of a legal 
loophole.