Man with child porn ‘obsession’ wins appeal against imposition of extended sentence

Stephen Bell, 59, was sentenced to an extended sentence with a custodial element of 52 months, but the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary ruled that the statutory test for imposing an extension period had not been met.

Lady Paton and Lord Turnbull heard that the appellant was convicted of contraventions of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 relating to the downloading and possession of indecent images of children.

‘Uncontrollable obsession’

In his report to the Appeal Court the sentencing sheriff outlined the circumstances of the case, which included a “massive number” of images, both still and moving, in categories, A, B and C.

The sheriff also described the appellant’s “total absorption” with downloading and viewing indecent images, such that he “neglected basic household tasks” and “did not even bother going to the toilet”, simply defecating where he was sitting at his computer.

The sheriff said it was “about as bad a case of its kind as I could imagine”, and observation with which the appeal judges agreed.

The judges described the appellant as being “in the grip of an uncontrollable obsession with child pornography”.

‘Excessive sentence’

But the appellant challenged the sentence imposed on the basis that it was “excessive” and that the statutory test for the imposition of the extended sentence, set out in section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, had not been met.

Allowing the appeal, the judges noted that a “significant sentence” of 52 months has been imposed.

Lady Paton said: “Not only will there be opportunities for programmes in custody, but there will also be a period on licence (which could range from as little as sic months to as much as 26 months). During that time, the appellant will be the subject of close supervision.”

A sexual offences prevention order of indefinite length, focused upon the offending conduct, had also been imposed, which provided: “The offender is prohibited from using any device capable of accessing the internet unless it has the capability to retain and display the history of internet use. The offender must make the device available on request for inspection by a police officer. The offender is prohibited from deleting such history of internet use. The offender is prohibited from possessing any device capable of storing digital images unless he makes it available on request for inspection by a police officer.”

Extension period ‘unnecessary’

The judges further observed that the appellant was subject to the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2003 for an “indefinite period”.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lady Paton said: “In these particular circumstances, we have reached the view that the test set out in section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 has not been met and that accordingly an extended sentence was unnecessary.

“We shall therefore allow the appeal, quash the sentence imposed and substitute therefor a sentence of 52 months dating from the same date as that imposed by the sheriff”.