Child porn man free as sentence is cut
Wednesday 13th July 2011, 2:29PM BST.
A FORMER hotel manager found guilty of possessing indecent images of children had his sentence slashed by the Court of Appeal.
Mark Gunter, who was 46 when he was sentenced in March, saw his 15-month sentence cut to three, meaning he would be released immediately.
Gunter was found in possession of 505 indecent images on a desktop computer and a laptop.
Most of the pictures were of children aged 13 and younger. A total of 501 of these images were of category one, while three were single images of levels three and four, and two of five. Five is the most serious.
However, presiding judge Jonathan Sumption, QC, said the category five images should have been reclassified at a lower level. Mr Sumption criticised the Guernsey courts in his summing up, saying they should follow the guidelines set in the UK.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Words fail me, I am gobsmacked!
Report abuse
that is just wrong, pure wrong.
Report abuse
UK guidelines should NOT be followed if this means shorter sentences for these sick individuals that walk amongst us and our children. Forget about categories just look at the facts – this “individual” had well over 500 images of children under the age 13 who will most probably be damaged till the day they die just for some sick minded individual’s gratification. Why the hell is it coming down to “Oh category 3 that deserves a shorter sentence than a category 5″ – I wonder if the children in the category 1 pictures are less damaged to those deemed category 5 pictures, regardless its taking a child’s innocence whatever the deemed category. However where I think the UK should be followed is in having a sex offenders register NOW, this “individual” needs to be tracked and not allowed to just “disappear”. A sad day for Guernsey justice…
Report abuse
I am absolutely astounded that Judge Sumption feels a 3 month sentence is adequate for a man found with images of child pornography, although if he’d had his way it would have been a fine and community service. I feel very sad that we live in a world where people like Judge Sumption feel that child pornography registers so little as a crime that it deems such a light sentence.
Report abuse
Dave Haslam, me to.
Report abuse
Level 1 = Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity (of a child aged under 18)
If you own a Sun Newspaper from the ’80s or ’90s featuring Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker, Debee Ashby or Linsey Dawn McKenzie you possess child porn as they were all featured on page 3 at age 16.
The films “The Blue Lagoon” and “Taxi Driver” contain erotic imagery of children, if you have watched either of these films you are a paedophile if we apply current guidelines.
A Google search for ‘Oliver guidelines’ produces a Google books page which goes into (horrific) detail of the offences comitted, images concerned and the sentence imposed. UK guidelines allow for extremely tough sentences for extreme cases.
A breakdown of the Sentencing Guidelines based upon Regina V Oliver are on this Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978
What’s happening at the moment in our court is that every case seems to result (not only for this crime) in a “deterrant” sentence with the convicted being used as an “Example”. There also appears to have been an attempt in this case to upgrade images to a higher category, allowing a higher sentence to be applied.
Whether the sentences applied in these cases should be higher or lower is not the issue, they should be consistant.
http://ceop.police.uk/ has some excellent links and information to protect you and yours from exploitation online and they are successfully targeting and catching the sick people actually making these horrible images.
Report abuse
: (
Report abuse
@Lawgiver you do have a point, the “letter of the law” means for example having a picture of your child on the beach in print form dating from say 1990 is fine but having the same picture on your phone or PC is technically illegal and could get you in serious trouble.
I had this discussion with someone the other day, the upshot is that to be completely assured of not being prosecuted in the unlikely event of your PC being confiscated at say, Gatwick security checkpoint and “inspected” for terrorism etc material you need to delete any and all images of anything which shows more than a square inch of nakedness from any machine you own.
Stupid, stupid world we live in, what idiots are in charge?! I say viva la revolution.
(goes off to sharpen pitchfork)
Report abuse
Oh, and did I mention that just downloading say, “The Human Centipede” by accident is grounds for prosecution under EP act in the UK even if the file was mislabelled as something else on the torrents? Only way to be safe is to not use the Internet at all and stick to pen and paper.
Report abuse
If the police had found a few splifs at the guys home he would be doing years not weeks in prison.
Report abuse
@Lawgiver
Not that I wish to detract from the thrust of the main story which I believe sends out the totally wrong message, but I must correct you that the ‘Levels’ you refer to do not contain reference to ‘a child under 18′ so I don’t know where you have misread this from.
The Copine Scale’ is used to categorise such images based on their severity and examiners must initially pass judgement on whether the subject is ‘under the age of 16′.
On this basis your comments regarding the Sun fall down as no offence is committed.
@Species_8472
You misunderstand the situation slightly. Having an apparently ‘indecent’ picture of a child (for example your own child naked on the beach) would not make you guilty of an offence as you have a lawful reason to hold such an image – regardless of the media it is contained on. Obviously images (even of your own children) in erotic poses would exceed such a reasonable and lawful excuse and you could then be liable to prosecution.
Report abuse
@Correction
Sorry to correct you mr Correction, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003
“The definition of child pornography has been changed to also include images of 16 and 17 year olds (note that the age of consent remains at 16).”
I assume you misread it.
Report abuse
@ Correction
No need to apologise – you are obviously not local otherwise you would know that we do not adhere to ‘Acts’ here we have ‘Laws’.
Your wikipedia knowledge is obviously immense but irrelevant over here as it does not apply!
You should also we wary of websites apparently being the ‘font of all knowledge’
Report abuse
So where do you get your vast knowledge Mr Correction? Observer’s book of Law? The Daily Mail?
If we do not use UK guidelines for guidance what country do you suggest we use? China? Japan?
The Court of Appeal is presided over by the Bailiff and English Q.C’s, what guidelines do you think they follow?
This man is clearly not an innocent, downloading 500 images doesn’t appear accidental and he pleaded guilty, if we used UK guidelines then 500 images are not even considered a substantial amount, 20,000 + apparently is (info. not from Wikipaedia). In the UK this individual would probably have received a slap on the wrist and a stern telling off. However, I do not think a custodial sentence is inappropriate in these cases, but whatever sentance is applied needs to be applied consistantly. What we’ve seen with this and other cases of it’s like is what appears to be a process of “think of a number and then double it”.
Report abuse
@ Lawgiver
Calm down, I quite agree that this person is not an innocent. The quantity of images of concern is loosely based on the total quantity on the media being examined – i.e a few images contained within tens of thousands is unlikely to have further action taken unfortunately.
I would suggest that 500 such images are always going to attract a court appearance over here.
I appreciate that we often utilise the UK version of most legislation and tweak it fou our own purposes – RIPA vs RIPL for example, however I would not like to see an increase in the legal age of subjects and am glad that we do not adhere to it.
As for the source of my knowledge, I’m afraid I don’t subscribe to those you mention but unfortunately rely on the unenviable legal task I have in this field.
Report abuse
I have been told by one of the UK’s most eminent criminal psychiatrists that Paedophiles can’t be rehabilitated so to me the idea of a slap on the wrist or deterrent sentence is laughable.
Guernsey’s sentencing of paedophiles is ridiculously lenient. Put ‘em away for a lo-hong time please. And not is a cosy, pool playing, access to the internet comfy prison. Prison should be a punishment!
And before all you lefty liberals start banging on about human rights and giving someone a second chance…. I don’t care about the human rights of someone who has hurt or violated/abused a child.
Report abuse
The “Human Rights law”, should be there to protect innocent victims, not every Joe and Jenny Bloggs, who might think that they are entitled to use for whatever, whenever.
Report abuse
‘Bring Back Hanging’ (I think we all get that you’re not the most open-minded of people) – you choose to hold your views because “I have been told by one of the UK’s most eminent criminal psychiatrists that Paedophiles can’t be rehabilitated”?
Am I correct in assuming, however, that had a psychiatrist told you that paedophiles could be rehabilitated you would renounce all your views? No? Thought not.
The fact is that there is a wide variety of opinion as to whether, and to what degree, paedophiles can be rehabilitated. Research into paedophile motivation, cognition, behaviour, and outcomes from rehab programmes is going on as we speak.
I would recommend researching a topic thoroughly and looking at different sides of an argument before pronouncing with great authority on it.
Your reliance on a conversation with one person to recommend the death penalty for a group of offenders would be hilarious if it weren’t so concerning.
Report abuse
If anyone is actually interested, I happen to know this man
Personally and have done for 20 years! I consider him a
close friend and what happened to him to happen to any of you
While you’re happy to condemn without the facts. I can give you the facts
Now it’s all over: he clicked on an email, just like you do
Everyday..!, realised what it was and deleted it straightaway..!
However, It takes a few minutes to delete (using good old dial-up) by which time the damage was done, the next thing we know the
Police are on his door, they seize his computer and send the hard
Drive off for analisys (which took several months incidentally).
To cut a very long story short, the only reason he pled guilty is
His advocate ( who didn’t really wan’t the case in the first place)
Thought it would avoid a custodial sentence and therefore he would be able
To keep the job that he loved so much and has held for over 20 years. I wanted him to fight it but NO the legal buffs know best..! And now his life is all
But ruined just by clicking on an email – that makes me sick..!
This man is no more a threat to children than the average mid wife,
If he is guilty of anything it’s being naive thinking only the guilty go to
Prison…! Be careful with emails from people you don’t know..!
Report abuse
Bring Back Hanging – you said – “… I have been told by one of the UK’s most eminent criminal psychiatrists … “. I am impressed by the company you keep, yet most curious as to who that might be. Please put your money where your mouth is and state who told you this – after all, not such a terrible stance, so why so shy with your evidence? unless of course you are making it up?
Report abuse
@ David andrew
Don’t be so naive.
Firstly, over 500 images do not suddenly appear on your computer at the click of an email. This is a defence that has been tried many times by offenders stating they had a virus which put them there etc. etc and is simply not true.
Secondly, the images were found on two different machines, therefore your theory about a single email would also fall down.
Thirdly, what has ‘good old fashioned dial up’ got to do with deleting a file? Dial up would slow the process of a file / email downloading not deleting.
I’m sure your motivation is based on protecting your friend, but your arguments are extremely weak and un-feasable.
Report abuse
David andrew
And you know all this because? if he was guilty he would have told you the truth right?
Report abuse
Bring Back Hanging,
You said ‘I don’t care about the human rights of someone who has hurt or violated/abused a child.’
Would you care about an abuser’s human rights any more if they had been abused as a child themselves?
Report abuse
Could someone explain to me the difference between 500 indecent/abusive images and 20,000 of the same? (And I don’t mean 19,500)
Report abuse
In reply to the comments left after mine, I can’t
Comment on others using various defences. ‘Mr corrections’
For example is clearly in the legal profession ( might
Even be the advocate in question) in which case his
Stance on this is totally understandable – they’re taught
Quite early on the law is the law, black and White no
Room for grey, I’ll say again this is not a man who
Had a huge collection of images, spent hours looking
At them and then drove around the island looking for
Victims, he’s made a silly mistake and paid dearly – but the
Media circus around this issue means he is labelled something
I know he isn’t. I’m not being naive, I know this like I know
The sun will rise tomorrow The same law you like to put
So much faith in has decided he’s paid enough, you can’t
Have it both ways…! As for the ‘bring back hanging’ comment
The whole reason we did away with it in the first place is too
Many mistakes were being made and they still are..!
Report abuse
@David Andrews
What a tangled web you are weaving Mr Andrews. Firstly you post a wishy-washy ‘oh it was the technology’s fault, accidental click, dial-up-modem, and all that’ excuse for your ‘friend’, which is quickly dismissed as the nonsense it is.
Then, once it is clear your attempted obfuscation of the facts has failed, you subsequently mumble something about how your buddy didn’t have a ‘huge’ collection of these sick images, nor did he spend ‘hours’ looking at them, and that he didn’t drive around the island looking for ‘Victims’. – Hardly exonerating statements now, are they?
The fact remains, Mr Andrews, that anybody with an ounce of I.T. knowledge is fully aware that hundreds of images of child rape do not appear on someone’s hard drive by accident, or even error.
I’d suggest you think carefully about continuing your failed defence of Mr Gunter, for it may risk presenting you as something else, other than simply naive and misguided.
Report abuse
I really do wander if these custodial sentances would be so low, if the images were of the children or grandchildren of our law officers / advocates / judges….
Report abuse
I don’t think the 2nd ‘David Andrews’ is the real one, different Icon and surname spelt differently!!
Report abuse
these people that look at child images should all be castrated they in my eyes are all very sick people indeed people we dont need in this world.
Report abuse
David Andrews or whoever you are.
I have said this before so please read this very carefully.
The photos on your so called friends computer were taken of children of all ages most probably living in squalor in the Far East.
They are either taken from their parents for payment, or are kidnapped without their parents consent.
In some cases they are tortured, and made to do unspeakable actions in order to get photos/ videos taken,( for your friends pleasure ).
Some children are treated to badly, that they never recover, and simply disapear never to be seen again.
You try and defend this, then you are no different to your friend,and I await to see your time in court.
Report abuse
@Bill Yeager
Apparently 500 of the images were Level 1 “images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity”, you changed that to “hundreds of images of of Child Rape”. Much more emotive term.
This is a horribly controversial subject, but in this thread we’ve had castration or hanging being offered as alternative therapies for this man. He is branded a Sex Offender, that term sticks, that term will follow him in his professional and personal life, that term makes him a leper.
I wish there was other terminology for these people who download such images. Pedophile should be for the horrible minority who are guilty of hurting children. If you download images of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that doesn’t make you a terrorist, downloading images of the Holocaust doesn’t make you a nazi, or a jew, or a murderer.
There has got to be an enormous difference in both punishment and chances of being rehabilitated between a man caught with child pornography on his computer, an 18 year-old sleeping with his 15 year-old girlfriend and a child rapist and killer, all of which would fall under the definition of pedophile.
Maybe ‘Bring Back Hanging’s’ eminent criminal psychiatrist friend can explain it.
Report abuse
@Lawgiver
You state that the label of Paedophile should only be applied to ‘the horrible minority who are guilty of hurting children’.
With your bizarre ‘wish’ for there to be another name applicable to those who download such images, coupled with your complaint about the ‘emotive’ term I used when, as you state, 500 of the images were ‘erotic posing with no sexual activity’, I am at a loss to understand your motivation for seeking to downgrade the harm caused by those who are part of this sick business. Because, let’s be honest here, anybody who downloads images of child abuse is playing their part in this vile trade.
It is a commonly used ploy by apologists of this heinous and sick industry, to conflate criminal acts with social sensitivities regarding young adults in consensual relationships, as you have done by throwing in the old favourite “but what about the eighteen year old and his slightly younger girlfriend”, but to attempt to equate downloading child pornography to seeing holocaust images or watching footage of terrorist attacks is just absurdly disingenuous and entirely dishonest.
You know full well that paedophilia is a wholly unacceptable psychological dysfunction and that the downloading of these images drives an industry of child pornography. So how can you seek to downplay the harm inflicted on abused children by those who like to claim that they are ‘only’ looking at pictures? After all, ‘only’ a small percentage of those who ‘only’ download pictures, will go on to actually abuse a child themselves, right?
500 images of children in ‘erotic poses’ is 500 images of children who have been betrayed by adults. These are not children who will simply ‘move on’ with their lives once they are of an age to realise the horrific nature of their betrayal. These are abused children, do not attempt to downplay the crimes committed against them.
Report abuse
I think this is absolutely disgusting, as J Jones stated, what is the difference between 500 and 20,000 images?! There is none, that is the answer…
How can the legal system justify the sentences these people are getting!!
Get 7 years, plead guilty and get it knocked down to 3 and then out in a year and a half…
MADNESS!!!
Report abuse
Lawgiver
Re your comment about people d/l pitures of the 9/11 attacks and the holocaust.
Do you think these people would look at these pictures and enjoy them the same way a pervert would view images of children? i doubt it very much.
And the ones that do enjoy the images of 9/11 and the holocaust would in my mind be no better than those who carry out these acts.
I mean they must in some way be supporting of them? the same way the pervert is supporting the abuse of children.
Bill Yeager
Good post
Report abuse
Can I just quote you from another thread bcb?
“The courts would be filled to breaking point if all 15 year old girls b/f were prosocuted or even reported for rape.”
Yes, I agree, and we seem to be reaching that point rapidly with those who are being caught simply for looking at child porn images on their computers. Extremely distasteful though this practice is, surely Lawgiver is right in that this particular type of offence is a world away from the much more serious crime of actually harming/sexually assaulting children?
A little common sense is needed here. Pretending all ‘paedophiles’ are as bad as each other simply is not practical and, in essence, it’s just the same as saying a small time local drug importer (say half a kilo of cannabis) is as bad as a big time South American drugs baron who trades in tonnes of cocaine. Both are ‘drug traffickers’ are they not?
Report abuse
Anyone who downloads sexual images of children is 100% complicit in child abuse.
Report abuse
Emotive guff j jones. To use my drugs analogy again, your last statement is like saying that anyone who buys a line of coke here is complicit in the unspeakable crimes of the S. American drug gangs who maim, butcher and murder. Clearly not the case.
Report abuse
@Martino
“simply for looking at child porn images on their computers” – Simply? You clearly are using the word as a dismissive device, so why not be honest with everyone, including yourself, and replace it with ‘only’.
Again with the attempts to normalise the toxic and harmful by conflating it with other issues that really have no bearing on the facts of the matter.
Teenagers having consensual sex, and the associated difficulties of ensuring sufficient education and empowerment for both parties is a complex issue, but one that should not be allowed to muddy the waters when it comes to discussions about the crime of paedophilia.
As for the ridiculous association with drug users and dealers, it’s another non-starter Mr Martino. Drug dealers trade substances as commodities, whereas paedophiles trade children as commodities. Or are you going to claim that drugs have feelings too?
Really, it is becoming quite, quite disturbing to read comments solely written to excuse, defend and downplay the appalling nature of the crime of child abuse.
You might call for ‘a little common sense’, how about applying a lot of common sense and accept just how destructive and damaging to children and society as a whole, the mental illness of paedophilia is.
It can’t be cured, it can barely be controlled and it is capable of destroying the lives of all its victims and those they come into contact with throughout their life. All because of a perversion that is still being treated as something that should have ‘permissible’ levels of categorisation when it comes to punitive measures.
A great many people would consider themselves more enlightened and far better off for having experienced some drug use during their lives.
Do you think a person could ever say their lives were better off for having been abused as a child?
No child ever chooses to be abused.
Report abuse
There was a martino that was very much for legalising stuff in Guernsey a while back,which I think involved 16 year ols, so it might be the same one.The states agreed with him and past the law.
Report abuse
@Derek Jones
The issue to which you refer is entirely unconnected to the subject of this thread. They do say ignorance is bliss however.
@Bill Yeager
I am more than happy to go along with the substitution of the word ‘simply’ with the word ‘only’ in my previous post. Whether we are talking about criminal acts by paedophiles or drug traffickers there are low level offences and there are more serious high level offences.
I think this was the quite reasonable point that Lawgiver was trying to make as well but you and some other posters appear to have developed quite a bee in your bonnet where paedos are concerned. You refuse to see the obvious difference, say, between an offender at the highest end of the scale who physically abuses and tortures his/her victims and one at the lower end of the scale who ‘only’ looks at a few (or a lot) of images on the Internet.
You may happy for £millions to be spent on locking up low level offenders in the States prison for many years but as a taxpayer I certainly am not.
Report abuse
Not emotive guff. If the was no demand for such images then less children would be abused to produce them.
Viewers are complicit.
I have to wonder why you are defending such actions, Martino.
Report abuse
The person I thought of was wanting it legal to do dirty things to 16 year old boys, but it might have been a different one. All this dirty stuff is bad whether its doing it or taking photos, its not fair on the kids and grownups should have more sense.
Report abuse