R v Darren Hugh Hollywood
[2024] EWCA Crim 591
R v William Peter Jaycock
11 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 954
Court of Appeal
A man made fake pictures of children in sexual situations by putting their faces onto adult porn. The court decided this was making, not just having, these illegal pictures, resulting in a longer prison sentence. The court corrected a small mistake about an extra fee he had been ordered to pay.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against sentence for offences contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
- •Appellant created indecent pseudo-photographs by superimposing faces of two known teenage girls (C1 and C2) and an unidentified girl under 12 onto images of adult women engaged in sexual activity.
- •Appellant pleaded guilty to three offences of making indecent photographs and one offence of failing to comply with notification requirements.
- •Appellant had a previous suspended sentence for similar offences.
- •Judge sentenced appellant to three years and ten months' imprisonment, activating the suspended sentence consecutively.
- •Appeal concerned the categorisation of the offences for sentencing purposes – production vs. possession.
Legal Principles
The seriousness of an offence increases with the offender's proximity to and responsibility for the original abuse.
R v Oliver [2002] EWCA Crim 2766
Sentencing guidelines distinguish between possession, distribution, and production of indecent images, with production offences carrying higher sentences.
Sentencing Council's Definitive Sentencing Guideline (2014)
Simple downloading is treated as possession, not production, for sentencing purposes.
Sentencing Council's Definitive Sentencing Guideline (2014)
Creation of pseudo-images by superimposing a child's face onto adult pornography is generally considered a production offence, not merely possession.
R v Bateman [2020] EWCA Crim 1333
Court of Appeal can choose which of its conflicting decisions to follow.
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited [1944] KB 718
The Protection of Children Act 1978 does not distinguish between possession and production as separate offences; the sentencing guidelines direct how to categorise the acts for sentencing.
Protection of Children Act 1978
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the appellant's actions constituted production, not merely possession, of indecent images. The court preferred the approach in R v Bateman over R v Norval, holding that the creation of a new indecent image, even using existing images, is a production offence for sentencing purposes. The judge's error regarding the ages of the adults in the original images did not significantly affect the sentence.
Correction of Statutory Surcharge
The statutory surcharge was imposed in error and should be amended to show that no surcharge is payable.