Indecent Images of Children R v RK – St Albans Crown Court, December 2017
The defendant was found not guilty of making indecent images of children after we were able to demonstrate a lack of ‘guilty mind’ – searches for, or visits to websites likely to contain, indecent images of children. The jury agreed that the search terms identified by the Police were ambiguous at best and the not guilty verdict was unanimous.
Indecent Images of Children R v SK – Coventry & Warwickshire Magistrates, September 2017
The Crown identified two indecent videos of children in a secure vault on the defendant’s iPhone. We were able to demonstrate these were part of a bulk transfer from an earlier phone and it was not possible to show that the defendant had viewed them or was aware of their content. The filenames themselves were not a true reflection of content. The Crown were unable to evidence the necessary ‘mens rea’ for making offences. The Crown offered no evidence on consideration of our report.
Indecent Images of Children R v SL – Luton Magistrates, September 2017
The Crown identified a small quantity of alleged indecent images of children on the defendant’s computer. Analysis by ourselves showed that a number of the images had originated from websites displaying the USC 2257 Title 18 disclaimers, and the remaining files had bland filenames, not indicative of their content, nor were there any searches for IIoC and as such there was no evidence of the ‘mens rea’ required for the offence of making. The Crown offered no evidence on consideration of our report.
Robbery R v MP – Aylesbury Crown Court, July 2017
Our Cell Site Analysis showed that the defendant was some 19 miles away from the scene of the robbery. The jury found the defendant not guilty.
Indecent Images of Children R v NS – St Albans Court, April 2017
This case started with an allegation of 4,000 (approx) indecent images of children. Our initial examination identified that the majority of the images had originated from websites purporting to use adult models and displaying the USC 2257 Title 18 age disclaimers. The CPS accepted this report and then amended the charges to just three (3) alleged indecent images of children, not part of the original 4,000. We prepared a further report and were able to demonstrate that these models were also of questionable age and that there was no evidence that the images were deliberately or knowingly sought. The Crown offered no evidence at trial.
Indecent Images of Children R v MI – Northampton Crown Court, April 2017
The Crown charged the defendant with a handful of indecent images of children. The defendant maintained he knew nothing about the images. Our examination of the evidence found that these images were located on a memory stick and were deleted – so the user would not know they were there or have access to them without data recovery/forensic tools. Further the dates associated with the deleted images predated the associated computer by some considerable time and there were no associated searches or any file activity to suggest the images had been viewed on the computer prior to deletion. The crown offered no evidence at court.
Indecent Images of Children R v ID – Luton Crown Court, November 2016
The Crown eventually conceded that they were unable to demonstrate the mens rea and deliberate making of the 800+ indecent images, found along with a large quantity of adult pornography on the defendant’s mobile phone. The 2002 stated case of R v SMITH and R v JAYSON applied and a reduced plea to just 11 live images were accepted.
Indecent Images of Children R v RS – Cambridge Crown Court, July 2016
The Judge requested the CPS Prosecutor reconsider their case which was ‘rather like a wedge, getting thinner and thinner’ after some of the alleged illegal images were found in un-extracted archive containers. The Police were unable to demonstrate that the defendant had viewed the contents of these containers, nor that he had any knowledge of the likely content.
President Uhuru Kenyatta – 2013-2015 (Cell Site Analysis) International Criminal Court, The Hague
Following an initial investigation for the Defence were we demonstrated that mobile phone Call Data Records provided to the Defence had been manufactured by an individual working for a well known firm of private investigators in the UK, the International Criminal Court and President Kenyatta of Kenya instructed us in 2013 as Single Joint Experts in a case of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’.
We were able to sucessfully extract data from 2006 to 2008 from old servers at both Safaricom and Airtel after they had assured us that no such data existed.
Using this data we were able to analyse the movement of hundreds of mobile phones belonging to key witnesses in the case – this evidence regularly demonstrated that the mobile phones of many key witnesses were often hundreds of kilometers away from where the witnesses claimed they were.
In 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor announced that they did not have sufficient evidence to continue the prosecution and the case with withdrawn.
We conducted further cell site analysis for the defence, in the case at the ICC against Deputy President William RUTO.
Facebook – R v SM – Cambridgeshire, November 2015
The complainant alleged that the defendant had raped her before sending her Facebook messages pertaining to the rape. We were able to demonstrate that the Facebook account that had sent the messages was not the defendant’s account, but an account created to look like the defendants. On receipt of our report the complainant admitted that she had fabricated the account and the CPS discontinued the case.
WhatsApp Indecent Images – R v SZ – Birmingham Crown, November 2015
We were able to demonstrate that the indecent video of a child had been received, unsolicited, via the WhatsApp application and had automatically been saved to the defendants handset. The Crown were unable to show that the defendant had viewed the video and no evidence was offered at trial.
Indecent Images of Children – R v SP – Essex, October 2015
The complainant maintained that he had not sought or seen indecent images of children. We were able to demonstrate that the only searches were for adult pornography and that the majority of the pictures, alleged to be indecent images of children, were young looking adults and had originated from adult websites. The CPS eventually discontinued the case.
Similarly we had an almost identical case discontinued in Bedfordshire in August 2015 and again in Maidstone in October 2015.
Web-based Email Evidence – R v CR – Northampton, July 2015
The Crown used an untrained covert operations Officer to conduct a forensic analysis of the defendant’s web-based email account. CR was then charged with possession of indecent images of children received unsolicited in his email account after the Police had taken control of the account. We were able to demonstrate a number of significant failings by the Officer which resulted in the CPS offering no evidence and the Officer being referred to Professional Standards.
Making Indecent Images of Children – R v RL – Northamptonshire, July 2014
All of the images were recovered from an external storage drive and there were no associated search terms or web history, other than for adult pornography. Counsel argued that the Crown were unable to prove that the indecent images of children were deliberately sought (R v SMITH, R v JAYSON) and the CPS offered no evidence.
Recognised Works of Art – R v AH – Oxfordshire, February 2013
Child Pornography case discontinued after it was shown that all images were published artworks/portfolios by photographers including Sally Mann, David Hamilton and Jock Sturges and were all available from retailers such as Tesco, Amazon and Waterstones (R v Stephen NEAL applied).
Mobile Phones – R v GT – Northern Ireland, November 2014
Our analysis of the iPhone showed that the PSNI had
- Failed to document a ‘triage’ examination
- Used the exhibit to take a photograph of their forensic workstation
- Used the exhibit to place a call to the complainant (alleged rape victim)
The court ruled that the integrity of the evidence had been compromised and the case was sent for re-trial without it. The defendant was acquitted.
An earlier Hampshire Constabulary case saw a defendant charged with rape. The defendant maintained that the complainant had consented to anal intercourse and that there was a video of this on his mobile phone. Hampshire Constabulary reported that there were no such videos on the device, however on examination we recovered the video as described by the defendant and the rape charge was discontinued.