T-Mobile has been a committed member of the IWF for over 5 years. We are strongly supportive of its effective self-regulatory model which is widely considered as a role model for other countries in Europe and has resulted in the IWF’s excellent record of combating online child abuse content in the UK.
Richard Moat, Managing Director, T-Mobile UK

R v Oliver, Hartrey and Baldwin

In August 2002 the Panel published its advice to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal clarified the definitions in relation to image level classifications.

The courts held that Level 1 as it seems to us, neither nakedness in a legitimate setting, nor the surreptitious procuring of an image, gives rise, of itself, to a pornographic image. Accordingly, with that amendment to the Panels proposals we categorise the relevant levels as:

(1) Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity;

(2) Sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child;

(3) Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children;

(4) Penetrative sexual activity between children and adults;

(5) Sadism or bestiality.

The implication of this judgement has been to remove nudity from the Level 1 offence however still retaining the element of erotic posing.

Neutral Citation Number: (2002) EWCA Crim 2766

On 30 April 2007 the Sentencing Guidelines Council published its Sexual Offences Act 2003 Opens in New Window

Definitive Guidelines Opens in New Window

. See page 109 for Part 6A: Indecent Photographs of Children including details of sentencing levels 1 - 5, guidelines for establishing the seriousness of child sexual abuse images.

Following R v Wild (2002) the court of appeal sought the views of the Sentencing Advisory Panel in relation to offences involving indecent photographs and pseudo images of children.