Indecent Images Solicitor

Top Tier and Nationally Recognised Legal Defence

Home > Criminal Defence > Indecent Images Solicitors

Being accused of possessing indecent images is one of the most distressing experiences a person can face. The stigma of these allegations can have a devastating effect on relationships, reputation, and employment, while the risk of imprisonment adds to the anxiety. These cases often involve restrictive bail conditions and social services involvement, making it vital to seek specialist advice at the earliest stage.

Reeds Solicitors specialise in defending indecent image allegations and provide expert, non-judgmental legal advice. Our team has represented hundreds of clients in cases involving material obtained through file-sharing platforms, messaging apps such as Kik, Discord, Snapchat, and Telegram, online chat rooms, and the dark web.

Contact our specialist Indecent Images Solicitors for a free, confidential initial consultation on 0333 240 7373 or at defence@reeds.co.uk

We rigorously challenge the prosecution’s technical evidence wherever possible. Where conviction cannot be avoided, our focus is on securing the most lenient outcome. We understand that issues such as addiction, trauma, or mental health difficulties may play a part, and that neurodivergence or compulsive behaviour can also be relevant. Sexual attraction to children is not always the underlying cause of these offences.

What are Indecent Images?

Indecent images is a criminal offence to make, possess, or distribute indecent images of children under 18. An indecent image is any photograph, video, or computer-generated picture that a reasonable person would consider indecent, including pseudo-photographs and realistic digital material.

In law, ‘making’ includes downloading, saving, or viewing content if this causes a copy to be stored on a device. ‘Distribution’ means sharing or forwarding it, and ‘possession’ means having control of it on any device or storage account.

Defences for Possession of Indecent Images

There are several possible defences of possession to indecent image allegations:

Brief or accidental viewing – the image appeared or was received without being sought, for example through a group chat, spam link, or pop-up, and was deleted immediately, showing no intention to possess or distribute it.

Lack of knowledge – the material was saved automatically or in the background without your awareness, for example when a browser caches images, a messaging app automatically downloads attachments, or photos are backed up to the cloud

Shared devices – other people, such as family members, colleagues, or housemates, had access to the same computer, tablet, or phone. It is not always possible to show who downloaded or viewed a file.

Malware or viruses – harmful software can download or save files without your consent, for example when pop-ups or infected websites create hidden folders or temporary files automatically.

Incorrect categorisation – police experts sometimes misclassify or overstate the seriousness of an image. We can challenge this via independent forensic analysis and significantly reduce the potential sentence.

Expert Defence Solicitors – Tier 1 of the Legal 500

Our specialist sexual offence team provides clear guidance about the legal process, likely outcomes, and timeframes, always seeking to robustly defend our clients’ interests and challenge the prosecution case where possible.

Our track record includes successfully persuading the police to resolve the matters out of court following early pre-charge representations, securing acquittals where we have shown that evidence was inconclusive, and achieving suspended or community sentences in cases initially assessed as high risk of custody.

Obtaining legal advice at an early stage is crucial. Contact our Indecent Images Solicitors at defence@reeds.co.uk or call 0333 240 7373.

Click Here for Frequently Asked Questions

Scott Primmer - Reeds Solicitors
Scott Primmer

Partner & Solicitor

Meet the team
Related Services
Related Insights

Defence Solicitors for Indecent Images Allegations

If you have been interviewed by the police and bailed to return to the police station, it is natural to have many questions and concerns. We offer a comprehensive pre-charge representation service on a clear fixed-fee basis, which includes:

  • Specialist solicitor support throughout, providing clear advice and reassurance
  • Review of your initial police interview and advice on any further action needed
  • Assessment of potential defence evidence
  • Preparation of written representations to the police – for example, to challenge weak evidence or to seek an out-of-court outcome such as a caution, supported by mitigating factors such as mental health difficulties, OCD, or neurodiversity
  • Direct communication with the investigating officer, including updates on bail extensions
  • Applications to vary or remove bail conditions where necessary
  • Representation at any further police interview
  • Practical guidance on proactive steps to prepare for possible outcomes and protect your position

The Sentencing Council classifies indecent images of children into three categories, which reflect the level of seriousness and determine the sentence the court is likely to impose.

  • Category A: Penetrative sexual activity, sadism, or sexual activity with an animal.
  • Category B: Non-penetrative sexual activity.
  • Category C: Other indecent images not falling within A or B, such as erotic posing without sexual activity.

In some cases, we will want to challenge the initial grading applied by the police or prosecution – for example, where images may have been wrongly categorised or misinterpreted during forensic review. Early expert legal advice is essential to ensure any errors are corrected before sentencing.

When the Judge decides on sentence, a starting point is identified within the Sentencing Council guidelines. It is based on the category of the image or images in question, the number and type of images involved, and the offender’s role: possession, distribution or production.

Possession or downloading of indecent images

Where images have only been downloaded or viewed, this is legally classed as “making” but is treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing.

Category A – Starting point – 1 year’s custody (range: 26 weeks – 3 years)
Category B – Starting point – 26 weeks’ custody (range: high-level community order – 18 months’ custody)
Category C – Starting point – high-level community order (range: medium-level community order – 26 weeks’ custody)

Distribution of indecent images

Category A – Starting point – 3 years’ custody (range: 2 – 5 years)
Category B – Starting point – 1 year’s custody (range: 26 weeks – 2 years)
Category C – Starting point – 13 weeks’ custody (range: high-level community order – 26 weeks’ custody)

Production or “making at source” of indecent images

This category covers the creation or recording of new indecent images and attracts the highest sentencing ranges within the guideline.

Category A – Starting point – 6 years’ custody (range: 4 – 9 years)
Category B – Starting point – 2 years’ custody (range: 1 – 4 years)
Category C – Starting point – 18 months’ custody (range: 1 – 3 years)

The court will also consider aggravating factors such as large quantities of material, deliberate concealment, or distribution to others. Mitigating factors can include early admission, cooperation, therapy, or evidence of mental health or compulsive behaviour issues.

Even where imprisonment is avoided, registration on the Sex Offenders Register is mandatory, and the court may also impose a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO). Specialist legal advice is vital to present effective mitigation and secure the most lenient possible outcome.

A Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) may be imposed after conviction for certain sexual offences, including indecent image cases. It can restrict internet use, contact with children, or possession of electronic devices, and can last from five years to life.

We advise clients on whether an SHPO is likely and ensure any proposed conditions are proportionate and justified. Through early preparation before sentencing, we can often oppose the need for an SHPO altogether, demonstrating that risk can be safely managed without one. Where an order is imposed, we can later apply for variation or discharge if the conditions become unnecessary or excessive.

We specialise in representing clients with neurodivergent conditions, including autism and ADHD. We recognise that such conditions can influence how individuals engage with technology, process information, or respond to stress – factors that may be relevant to understanding the background to an allegation.

Our team approaches every case with sensitivity and care. We can make practical adjustments to ensure that each client’s individual needs are met, including how meetings and conferences are arranged. This may involve flexible scheduling, written summaries after discussions, or remote meetings designed to reduce anxiety and support clear communication. We can also obtain expert evidence to explain how neurodiversity may have influenced behaviour or decision-making.

Allegations involving indecent images often turn on complex questions of knowledge, intent, and technical evidence. The courts have repeatedly emphasised that criminal liability requires a knowing and deliberate act, not merely the automatic creation or storage of files. These cases illustrate how careful analysis of digital evidence and expert advocacy can make a decisive difference to the outcome.

Atkins v DPP [2000] 2 Cr App R 248, the defendant’s computer automatically stored indecent material while he was browsing the internet. The court found that he could not be guilty of “making” the images because he had no knowledge that they were being saved.

R v Harrison [2007] EWCA Crim 2976 Harrison regularly visited adult websites that triggered automatic “pop-up” windows containing indecent images of children, which were stored on his computer. He claimed the images appeared without his control. The Court of Appeal rejected this, finding that because Harrison knew such pop-ups were likely when visiting those sites, he accepted the risk that illegal material would be saved. That was enough to amount to making and possessing the images.

The case shows that automatic pop-ups can still lead to criminal liability where the user knowingly accesses sites likely to generate indecent material.

R v Porter [2006] EWCA Crim 560 confirmed that “possession” under section 160(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires both knowledge and custody or control of the indecent images.

The Court of Appeal held that deleted files which can only be retrieved using specialist forensic software are not “possessed” if the defendant cannot personally access or restore them. The appeal succeeded because, on the date alleged in the indictment, the defendant no longer had control or the practical ability to view the images.

The decision establishes that digital possession depends on access and control, not merely the residual presence of data on a storage device. However, this does not provide a blanket defence: a person may still be guilty if they had control of the images before deletion or if they knowingly retained accessible copies.

This authority highlights the importance of instructing a defence team familiar with both digital-forensic evidence and the legal definition of possession in indecent image cases.

Get in touch

Information is processed inline with UK GDPR and our Privacy Policy

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

FAQ

The law on indecent images is primarily set out in the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, both of which make it an offence to take, make, or possess indecent images of anyone under 18. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 also contains related provisions for distribution and other sexual offences involving indecent material.

For official guidance on how these laws are applied and prosecuted, see the CPS guidance on indecent photographs of children: Indecent and Prohibited Images of Children | The Crown Prosecution Service

To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. This includes showing that:

  • The image is indecent.
    “Indecent” is judged by the standards of a reasonable person and can include photographs, videos, or computer-generated images (known as pseudo-photographs).
  • The image depicts a child.
    A child means anyone under 18 years old. The court can infer age from the appearance of the person shown or from other evidence.
  • The defendant possessed the image.
    Possession means having custody or control of the file — for example, on a phone, computer, external drive, or cloud account. It is not necessary to have viewed the image, only to have the ability to access it.
  • The defendant knew about the image and its nature.
    The prosecution must prove that the person knew, or at least suspected, that the image existed and was indecent. Files automatically saved or cached without knowledge may not amount to criminal possession.

We examine each of these elements closely, often with digital-forensic experts, to test whether the prosecution can truly prove knowledge, control, or intent.

Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, “making” an indecent image doesn’t mean physically creating a photograph. It covers any act that causes an image to exist, including viewing, downloading, or saving content online. Even if a copy is stored automatically in your device’s cache, this can still amount to “making” under the law.

Many people are understandably shocked to learn that simply viewing or opening a file can trigger an allegation of “creating” or “making” an image. Devices automatically save temporary copies, thumbnails, or cached files without user intent. Our team regularly instructs digital-forensic experts to demonstrate how such files were generated and to challenge the assumption of deliberate activity.

Possible defences include lack of intent, lack of knowledge, automatic storage, device sharing, or malware creating downloads without your consent. In some cases, the material may have been received unsolicited or stored automatically without the person’s awareness.

We work closely with digital-forensic experts to analyse how files were created, accessed, or stored, and to establish whether they were knowingly possessed or made. Demonstrating that the material was downloaded or retained without intent or control can be decisive in securing an acquittal or persuading the CPS not to proceed.

If an indecent image is sent without being requested, simply receiving it is not an offence. The law requires the prosecution to prove that a person knowingly and voluntarily possessed the image under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

However, once the image is opened and viewed, the person becomes aware of its content. If it is then allowed to remain on the device, such as in a WhatsApp gallery or message history, the law may treat that as knowing possession. The issue is not whether the image was wanted, but whether it was knowingly kept under the person’s control.

If the image remained only because of automatic storage, or was promptly deleted once discovered, criminal liability may not arise. Each case depends on its facts, including how the image was received, viewed, and stored. We can analyse the forensic evidence and make representations where possession was brief, inadvertent, or not in the public interest to prosecute.

Yes. At the pre-charge stage, we can make detailed representations to the police or Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) explaining why a prosecution should not proceed. These may focus on weaknesses in the evidence or on factors showing that prosecution is not in the public interest.

This may apply where there are compelling personal circumstances such as mental-health difficulties, learning disabilities, autism, or Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Such conditions can influence how a person interacts with technology or experiences intrusive thoughts, leading to behaviour that is not driven by sexual intent. It can also apply where the suspect is very young or has acted out of immaturity rather than deliberate wrongdoing.

Other relevant factors include where only a small number of low-level images are involved, where the material was accessed inadvertently, or where the person has already taken positive steps such as engaging in therapy or counselling. Where a prosecution would cause disproportionate harm to family life, employment, or mental health, these points can also weigh against charge.

By intervening early, we can present these issues with expert evidence and invite the police to resolve the matter out of court.

When your devices are seized, they will be sent to a digital forensic unit for analysis. This process can take many months due to national backlogs. Investigators will identify files they believe meet the legal definition of indecent images. We can liaise with the police to monitor progress and, where possible, obtain disclosure of the findings at an early stage.

When you delete a file from a phone or computer, it is not removed immediately. The data are marked as “free space” and remain recoverable until overwritten. Police forensic units use specialist software to locate and reconstruct deleted or partially overwritten files, even on reformatted or damaged devices. In some cases, these images were never intentionally downloaded or viewed.

We carefully review this forensic process and can instruct independent experts to assess whether the material was genuinely accessible to you and whether it supports a finding of intent or possession.

Indecent images are classified by seriousness:
• Category A – penetrative sexual activity or acts involving sadism.
• Category B – non-penetrative sexual activity.
• Category C – other indecent images not falling into A or B.
The category, number, and circumstances of the images will influence the sentence and whether custody is likely.

It depends on the nature and quantity of the images. Category A offences often attract immediate custody, while Category B and C cases may result in community orders. Sentences under two years can often be suspended, meaning no immediate prison time. Carefully prepared mitigation, expert reports, and evidence of treatment or therapy can make a major difference.

Courts consider factors such as early admissions, remorse, previous good character, and engagement with therapy or treatment programmes. Psychological or psychiatric reports can significantly reduce the likelihood of immediate custody. Our team regularly prepares detailed mitigation to secure suspended or community sentences where possible.

Yes. Anyone convicted of an indecent images offence must comply with notification requirements, often referred to as the Sex Offenders Register. The period depends on the sentence: five years for a community order, ten years for custody between six and 30 months, and indefinitely for longer terms. We can advise on compliance and future applications for removal.

A Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) is a court order that can be imposed after conviction for certain sexual offences, including indecent image offences. It restricts specific activities, such as internet use, unsupervised contact with children, or possession of certain devices, where the court believes it is necessary to protect the public from sexual harm.

An SHPO usually lasts between five years and life, depending on the case. Breaching the order is a separate criminal offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.

We can advise on whether an SHPO is likely, ensure that any proposed conditions are proportionate, and apply for early variation or discharge where appropriate. We also regularly oppose the imposition of an SHPO. We argue that it is not necessary in the particular circumstances of the case. This is often due to early preparation in the weeks leading up to sentencing. We provide detailed evidence that shows the risk can be managed without an order.

The police routinely notify social services if children are involved or live at the address. Employers may become aware if devices are seized from work or if you require bail conditions restricting computer use. We can advise on managing professional and personal disclosure and, where relevant, liaise with regulators or social services on your behalf. We can also apply to change your bail conditions in some circumstances.

Our Sexual Offences team offer an unrivalled level of experience and expertise in this area. We aim to provide the very highest standards of client care, with direct contact with your solicitor at all times as well as clear, honest and carefully considered advice.

We work with some of the most pre-eminent barristers in the country and have consistently achieved exceptional results for our clients.

We also have relationships with a number of support agencies, whose involvement can be a key factor in avoiding a custodial sentence.

All of our lawyers have undertaken training in neurodiversity and understand the stress that legal proceedings can bring.

With more than 20 offices across England and Wales, including City of London, Oxford, Reading, Manchester, Bristol, Cardiff, Northampton, Milton Keynes, High Wycombe, Swindon, Gloucester, Eastbourne, Luton, and Coventry, Reeds Solicitors can represent clients anywhere in the UK.

We offer virtual meetings via Microsoft Teams and in-person appointments at your nearest office.