 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (August 2020) |
| R v Bowden | |
|---|---|
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Full case name | Regina v. Jonathan Richard Bowden |
| Decided | 10 November 1999 |
| Citation | [2001] QB 88; [2000] 2 WLR 1083; [2000] 2 All ER 418; [2000] 1 Cr App R 438; [2000] 2 Cr App R (S) 26, |
| Transcript | https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1999/2270.html |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Conviction at Cambridge Crown Court. Presided by Haworth J. (unreported) |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Otton LJ, Mrs Justice Smith, Mr Justice Collins |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam (unanimously): digital and any other making (including re-making) of an indecent photograph of a child is prohibited as specified by a 1978 Act, amended in 1994. The offence can extend to those in a lowly role in part of a more severe, related set of activities, to whom a greater sentence would be applicable. | |
| Keywords | |
| |
In R v Bowden, a 1999 appeal, the English Court of Appeal dismissed a defence effort to depart from the literal rule, the taking of the natural meaning of statutory language. It concerned the making (copying with knowledge of the content) of an indecent photograph of a child. It confirmed it was irrelevant as to whether the offence was committed that these actions were part of a much larger production and distribution effort. That would likely be a relevant consideration at the time of sentencing if the jury found the facts established guilt.[1]