of the 1994 Act: see R v Fellows and Arnold (1997) 2 All ER 548, (1997) 1 Cr App R 244. In his Lordship's judgment, section 1 of the 1978 Act as amended was clear and unambiguous in its true construction. Quite simply, it rendered unlawful the making of a photograph.
There was no definition section. Accordingly, the words "to make" were to be given their natural and ordinary meaning. In context that was "to cause to exist; to produce by action, to bring about" Concise Oxford English Dictionary (9th edition (1995) p823).
As a matter of construction such a meaning applied not only to original photographs but by virtue of section 7 also to negatives, copies of photographs and data stored on computer disk.
His Lordship accepted the Crown Counsel's submissions that a person who either downloaded images on to a disc or who printed them out was making them. The 1978 Act was not only concerned with the original creation of images, but also their proliferation.
Photographs or pseudophotographs found on the Internet might have originated from outside the United Kingdom but to download or print within the jurisdiction was to create new material which hitherto might not have existed therein.
Accordingly, his Lordship concluded that despite the fact that the defendant had made the photographs or pseudophotographs for his own use, his conduct was clearly caught by the Act
The Decision
Downloading and/or printing of computer data of indecent images of children from the Internet was capable of amounting to an offence contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
The Court of Appeal, so held in dismissing an appeal by Bowden, against his conviction at Crown Court but allowing his appeal against sentence of four months imprisonment, of offences contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the 1978 Act, after pleading guilty, following unsuccessful submissions, to counts of having "made an indecent photograph".
The four-month sentence, which had been ordered to be served concurrent to a prison sentence of three months for possessing an indecent photograph of a child under the age of 16 contrary to section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, was reduced to a 12-month conditional discharge.
Comment
Downloading, in R v City of London Magistrates' Court and Another, Ex parte Green (1997) The Times, March 13 The QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONAL COURT defined "Download".
To "download" a computer meant to "transfer (data) from one storage device or system to another" in accordance with the definition contained in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (9th edition (1995).
See also the case of R v Fellows R v Arnold (1996) The Times, October 3; (1997) 2 All ER 548; (1997) 1 Cr App R 244 mentioned in this judgment.
On a similar vein it has also been held that it is no offence to show indecent film of child only to oneself, seeR v T 163 JPN 349; (1999) The Times, 12 February Court of Appeal
Rob Jerrard