In an interesting case out of Australia, a stepfather was convicted of possession of child pornography and must register as a sex offender after keeping the images his stepdaughter sent to a boyfriend as "evidence."
When Ashan Ortell, 57, discovered that his 15-year-old stepdaughter had been sending sexually explicit text messages and images to her boyfriend, he notified the school and police. However, he was not satisfied with the school's response to discovering the sexts.
In order to preserve evidence, Ortell confiscated the girl's phone and downloaded the inappropriate pictures to his computer and a USB drive. However, police informed Ortell that he could be prosecuted for possession of child pornography if he did not delete the images. Ortell, who is the one who notified police he had the images to start with, refused to delete them.
Police then conducted a series of raids in 2013 in which they confiscated the man's computer and USB devices. In a search of the electronics, they discovered 18 images that he had retrieved from his stepdaughter's phone.
Ortell was charged and subsequently convicted, even though a judge admitted that his "crime" did not have the lewd intent typically associated with child pornography possession.
"There is no suggestion of any exploitation of them by anybody. You made no attempt to conceal the images. In fact you were so concerned that you contacted the authorities about the images," the judge acknowledged. However, the judge found that despite no lewd intent, the Ortell violated the law in keeping the images, because under the law, people may not keep sexually explicit images of children.
The man faced up to five years in prison, but given the nature of his "crime" and his lack of criminal history, he was instead sentenced to a year of "good behavior bond." Unfortunately, under the law, he must still register as a sex offender for a period of eight years, despite not having exploited anyone.
Under Oklahoma law, child pornography possession and distribution laws do not apply to "persons who may possess or distribute obscene matter or child pornography or participate in conduct otherwise prescribed by this act, when such possession, distribution, or conduct occurs in the course of law enforcement activities" (21 O.S. § 1021.1). However, the stepfather in the Australian case was not a law enforcement officer, a prosecutor, or a judge who was in possession of the materials for the purpose of facilitating the case. Instead, he had been ordered to destroy the images, but determined they were evidence in spite of the police determination that there was no criminal case.
What are your thoughts? Do you believe the man should have been convicted and required to register as a sex offender?
Image credit: Pro Juventute
