What reported UK appellate cases have decided cases involving claims of accidental downloading of indecent images?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The reported appellate decisions that most directly address claims of accidental downloading or automatic creation of indecent images in the UK include Atkins (often cited as Atkins v DPP), R v Porter, and the Court of Appeal rulings in R v Smith and R v Jayson, with later authority touching on related issues such as the objective test of indecency in R v Neal; these decisions collectively show the courts balancing technical digital realities against statutory definitions of “making” and “possession” [1] [2] [3]. Commentary from defence practitioners and experts stresses that these rulings leave room for forensic and factual argument about knowledge, control and automatic caching, but the law has been broadly interpreted so defendants face significant evidential hurdles [1] [4] [2].
1. Atkins and the automatic-storage defence: a narrow escape for accidental downloaders
In Atkins — frequently cited in practice guides and defence commentary — the Court of Appeal accepted that automatic storage by a computer, without the defendant’s knowledge, can mean the accused did not “make” an image for criminal liability, providing a foundational authority for accidental-downloading defences; expert and firm guides point to Atkins as the case showing the court will require proof of knowledge where files are cached automatically during browsing [1] [5].
2. R v Porter: deleted-but-recoverable files and the limits of “possession”
The Court of Appeal in R v Porter confirmed that digital files that have been deleted and are retrievable only with specialist forensic software are not necessarily “possessed” if the defendant lacked practical control or the ability to access them at the relevant time — a ruling defence firms highlight when arguing that residual or recoverable data does not equate to legal custody or control [1].
3. R v Smith and R v Jayson: opening attachments, pop‑ups and a broad “making” concept
The Court of Appeal decisions collected under R v Smith and R v Jayson held that activities such as opening an email attachment or viewing a webpage where an indecent image “pops up” can amount to “making” an image; courts have therefore interpreted “making” broadly to include downloading, storing or otherwise causing an image to exist on a device, a point repeatedly summarised in practitioner guides [2].
4. R v Neal and the objective indecency test — different focus, same net effect
While not about accidental downloading per se, R v Neal establishes that indecency is tested objectively by the court, a formulation the Court of Appeal applied when assessing contested images; practitioners note this objective test can compound difficulties for defendants who seek to minimise liability by arguing lack of intent, because the characterisation of images does not depend solely on subjective belief [3].
5. Practical implications: forensic evidence, control and the burden that remains
Law firm and defence literature make clear that these appellate decisions have produced a technical, fact-driven landscape: prosecutors can still secure convictions where evidence shows knowledge, deliberate downloading or control, while defendants rely on Atkins/Porter-style authorities and expert digital forensics to argue automatic caching or absence of access — but those same sources warn that the courts have repeatedly expanded statutory terms like “make” and “possess”, shrinking safe havens for accidental explanations [1] [4] [2].
6. Limits of the reporting and the alternative view
The sources supplied are predominantly practitioner and expert-commentary pages summarising appellate authority rather than full law reports; they consistently present the defence perspective (emphasising technical defences) and also note prosecutorial traction from the courts’ broad readings of statutory terms — primary judgments should be consulted for full reasoning and for any later clarifying authority not captured in these summaries [1] [2] [5].