A sex offender's prevention order is 'unworkable' - because it might prevent him from reading The Radio Times, a court heard. Ian Davidson, 62, was given a punishing sexual harm prevention order banning him from having any image or video of an unclothed or ‘partially-clothed’ child. It followed a conviction where he was dealt with for pointing his camera at children on the beach.
He told police officers that he had taken the memory card out of the camera - but admitted looking at youngsters through the lens. Police made a routine visit to his home in Didcot on August 9, 2021, to check he was complying with his 2007 order. And when an officer looked at one of the files on his laptop she was surprised to find it was a video of naked children.
The officer took the view that the material was not ‘indecent’ and so would not have been illegal to possess - were it not for the fact he had a court order banning him from having images of undressed children. Prosecutor Charles Digby told Oxford Crown Court that Davidson told the police the video was from a legitimate movie made in the 1990s and showed them the film’s entry on filmography website IMDb.
In a basis of plea, Davidson, admitted breaching his sexual harm prevention order, saying he had 34 images and 26 videos he should not have on the computer first looked at by the officer and seven images on a further device. The material was collected between 2016 and 2020. Defending, advocate Michael Phillips pointed out the various flaws in his client’s wide-reaching sexual harm prevention order.
“It’s unworkable to a large extent, because if he was to buy a copy of the Radio Times and take it home he may well be in breach of the order,” he said. Similarly, if a catalogue was posted through the door that contained images of semi-clothed children, it was suggested he might be in breach of the court order.
Mr Phillips said his client was a film buff with a large collection of DVDs of movies dating from the 1950s to the 1990s. He was concerned that, if they contained depictions of semi-clothed children, he may inadvertently be in breach of the order. Sentencing, Judge Nigel Daly accepted that it might seem ‘rather strange’ that Davidson could break the law by having something that was not illegal.
“But that is the situation,” he added. “The order remains extant unless it is changed. I appreciate the peculiar difficulties that may occasioned by the wording of the order but this is not a case of you receiving the Radio Times in the post.
“This is a case of deliberately downloading these images when you knew or ought to have known because of the wording of the order that you were not allowed to.”
He imposed a three year community order with up to 30 rehabilitation activity requirement sessions with the probation service.
