Upload your documents, statements, or evidence to Caira and ask questions about your case. Caira is privacy-first—if you can think it, you can ask it, without judgement. Caira can help you spot inconsistencies, highlight potential issues, and prepare draft representations or letters—so you can make informed decisions about your next steps. Get practical support, clarity, and confidence before charges are considered. Start now
Why the Pre-Charge Stage Is Critical for Indecent Images Allegations
Indecent images offences—such as possession, distribution, or creation of indecent images of children—are among the most stigmatising allegations a person can face. The consequences of a charge extend far beyond the courtroom: employment, relationships, reputation, and mental health can all be profoundly affected. The pre-charge stage is therefore your most important opportunity to clarify the facts, challenge assumptions, and prevent unnecessary prosecution. These cases are highly technical, often turning on digital forensic evidence, device analysis, and the precise circumstances in which images came to be on a device.
The CPS must satisfy both the evidential test and the public interest test before authorising a charge. In indecent images cases, the evidential test requires proof not only that images existed on a device, but that the suspect knew about them and had a degree of control or intent. If you can demonstrate that images were downloaded accidentally, that the device was shared, or that malware or third-party access was responsible, the evidential test may not be met. Early intervention—supported by clear evidence and well-drafted representations—gives you the best chance of a favourable outcome.
Requesting Disclosure
Digital forensic evidence is central to indecent images cases. Understanding what the police have found, and how they found it, is essential for preparing your response. Consider requesting:
Forensic reports from the analysis of computers, phones, tablets, or cloud accounts
Details of image categories—the number, type, and classification (Category A, B, or C) of images found
Access and download logs—when images were downloaded, accessed, or viewed
Metadata analysis—file creation dates, modification dates, and user account information
Evidence of how images were discovered—search terms, browser history, peer-to-peer software, or tip-offs
Details of device seizure and handling—chain of custody, forensic imaging procedures, and any irregularities
Even partial disclosure can reveal critical issues. For example, if forensic analysis shows that images were in a cache folder and never deliberately accessed, or that the device was infected with malware that redirected browsing, this fundamentally changes the picture. Make all requests in writing and keep a record of the response.
Written Representations: Challenging the Evidence
Written representations in indecent images cases must be precise, evidence-based, and focused on the technical realities. Effective representations will:
Challenge knowledge and intent: The prosecution must prove that you knew the images were on the device and had some degree of control or intent. If images were downloaded by malware, cached by a browser without your knowledge, or placed on the device by a third party, set this out clearly with supporting evidence.
Highlight device sharing: If the device was shared with family members, housemates, colleagues, or used in a public setting (library, workplace), provide evidence. Shared devices make it far harder for the prosecution to prove who was responsible for specific files.
Raise malware or third-party access: Malware, viruses, Trojans, and remote access tools can download images without the user's knowledge. If there is any evidence of infection—unusual pop-ups, system slowdowns, unfamiliar software—request that the forensic analysis specifically addresses this. An independent forensic report may be warranted.
Question the forensic methodology: Digital forensic analysis must follow strict protocols. If the device was not properly imaged, the chain of custody was broken, or the analysis was incomplete (for example, failing to check for malware or failing to analyse all user accounts), highlight this. Procedural errors can undermine the reliability of the evidence.
Present context: If images were deleted and only found in unallocated space, or were never opened, this is relevant to both the evidential and public interest tests. The prosecution must prove more than mere presence on a hard drive—it must show possession in the legal sense, which requires knowledge and control.
Request further lines of enquiry: If the police have not investigated malware, not checked all user accounts on the device, or not considered alternative explanations, request that they do. The officer in charge must pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996).
Common Grounds for Dismissal
Indecent images cases can be challenged effectively at the pre-charge stage on several grounds:
No evidence of intent or knowledge: If images were cached, downloaded by malware, or placed on the device without the user's knowledge, the prosecution cannot prove the mental element of the offence.
Forensic evidence does not support the allegation: If images were never accessed, were in deleted or unallocated space, or forensic analysis is incomplete, the evidential test may not be met.
Device sharing or third-party access: If multiple people had access to the device, the prosecution must prove which individual was responsible. If this cannot be established, the case should not proceed.
Procedural errors: Failure to follow proper forensic protocols, contamination of evidence, incomplete analysis, or improper handling of devices can all undermine the prosecution case.
Public interest test not met: In cases involving a very small number of low-category images, no evidence of distribution, and strong personal mitigation, the CPS may conclude that prosecution is not in the public interest.
Important Evidence to Gather
Indecent images cases depend heavily on technical evidence. Start gathering material as soon as possible:
Forensic reports detailing device analysis, image categories, and access logs
Evidence of malware, viruses, or third-party access to the device
Witness statements from people who used the device or can confirm shared access
Correspondence with IT professionals or digital forensic experts
Documentation showing device sharing—family computers, workplace devices, public terminals
Records of any security software, antivirus scans, or system logs that may be relevant
Nuanced Considerations
Indecent images cases often hinge on the technical evidence and the interpretation of "possession" and "intent." The law requires more than the mere presence of images on a device—it requires knowledge and a degree of control. If you can show that images arrived on the device without your knowledge or involvement, this is a strong defence. The forensic analysis is key: if it was not thorough, or if it failed to consider alternative explanations such as malware or device sharing, this must be challenged.
It is also important to understand the distinction between different types of "possession." Images found in a browser cache, in unallocated disk space, or in a deleted folder are not the same as images deliberately saved and organised. The prosecution must prove deliberate, knowing possession—not just that a file once existed somewhere on a hard drive. If the forensic evidence does not demonstrate deliberate access or retention, this is a significant weakness in the case.
If the investigation has not pursued reasonable lines of enquiry—for example, failed to check for malware, did not analyse all user accounts, or ignored evidence of device sharing—reference this in your representations. The officer in charge must retain and disclose all relevant material (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996). Gaps in the investigation weaken the evidential test and support arguments for no further action.
Precedent and Practice
The CPS charging decision is governed by the Code for Crown Prosecutors, requiring both evidential and public interest tests. In indecent images cases, the CPS has published specific guidance on the factors to consider, including the number and category of images, evidence of distribution, and the suspect's personal circumstances. Early, detailed representations that address these factors directly can be highly effective.
If you are under investigation for indecent images offences, do not delay. Prepare a clear timeline of device use, gather all relevant documents, and identify witnesses who can support your explanation. Challenge any assumptions made by investigators, request further lines of enquiry, and highlight any procedural errors or gaps in the evidence. Uploading your documents and correspondence to Caira can help you organise your material, spot inconsistencies, and draft strong representations.
How People Use Caira for Indecent Images Investigations
People facing indecent images investigations use Caira to take practical, private steps towards resolving their situation. Common goals include:
Working towards having a case dropped before charges: Uploading forensic reports, police correspondence, and device information to identify weaknesses in the digital evidence and prepare draft representations aimed at no further action.
Building a defence strategy: Analysing the forensic evidence, identifying gaps in the analysis (such as failure to check for malware or device sharing), and organising material to challenge the prosecution's assumptions about knowledge and intent.
Preparing representations to the CPS: Drafting structured submissions that highlight forensic gaps, procedural errors, or alternative explanations—with the aim of persuading the CPS not to proceed.
Requesting varied bail conditions: Reviewing bail paperwork and drafting written requests where conditions may be disproportionate or unnecessarily restrictive.
Getting clarity and confidence in private: Asking sensitive, difficult questions about your situation in a confidential, judgement-free environment—so you can understand your position and take informed next steps.
Disclaimer: This article is general information only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice.
