Attending Southwark Crown Court yesterday, I was struck by a charge which Father Tony McSweeney pleaded not guilty to which referred to the possession of an indecent ‘pseudo image’ of a child. This was not the most serious charge but it is one that needs an explanation. Certainly, I’d never heard of this before.
What does it mean ?
Below is the definition from wikipedia.
Father Tony McSweeney
A pseudo-photograph is “an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph”.
Although the term pseudo-photograph can be applied regardless of what it depicts, in law its meaning is especially relevant regarding child pornography.
In the UK, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the Protection of Children Act 1978 so as to define the concept of an “indecent pseudo-photograph of a child”.
theneedleblog 
Pingback: Operation Shakespeare (1993) And The Emergence Of The Pseudo-Image | theneedleblog
Pingback: Pseudo-Image | justiceforkevinandjenveybaylis
The whole point is that an image stored in computer memory, while it is being viewed, is NOT a photograph, is NOT a drawing, it’s a pseudo image.
A “photograph” or “video” stored on a hard drive, flash drive or cloud storage is nothing more than an array of binary digits at the lowest level,
Storing long collections of “1” s and “0” s isn’t a crime, the crime lies in the fact that particular sequences can be shown to represent material that must have originated as the result of criminal action.
Technical definitions and Legal definitions are closely argued as points of law.
Suggestion for meaning of pseudo image … you can put together a large number of small pieces of square paper of different colours so as to give the impression of a large photo, e.g. each square of paper represents a pixel. I believe conceptual artists use the technique at times, tho I can’t remember any names.
one image i doubt if they can realistically convict him on that.
if he gave a good enough explanation i think you have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
am i reading this correctly because of never heard of anyone being charged with possession of one image before
If this were the sole charge then I’d be inclined to agree with you.
But it’s not and I doubt the CPS would have proceeded if it were.
I only mentioned it because it is an unusual charge which I’d not heard of before and so I thought it needed an explanation. Also, I suspect that most readers hadn’t even realised it was a criminal offence and so I think it’s important to inform.
hang on possession of 1 image they’ll have to better than that.
i mean you could give someone the benefit of the doubt if they had a plausible explanation.
I did say it was NOT the most serious charge.
Shocking