moral panic

...but I didn't speak up because I was not in jail.

(with apologies to Pastor Martin Niemoller)

Now it seems "mens rea" is at risk in the British legal system. In a case highlighted in the British Journal of Photography an academic at Sheffield University who ran a legitimate business in his spare time creating artsy photographs of models and children to make them look like fairies by superimposing images on each other (I know, I can't quite imagine it either, but presumably to make them look ethereal - and he has exhibited such work in local art shows and so on) has been convicted of making indecent photographs of children and sentenced to 150 hours' community service.

Parents of two girls commissioned the work and were in the studio with them most of the time, and were happy with the work, but he was shopped by staff at the film processing company, his home raided and his computer confiscated. Even the judge told Dr Marcus Phillips that he had 'always acted perfectly properly', adding that it was clear Phillips 'had no base motive, no sexual motive and there was not any question of deriving sexual gratification' from the work. The Judge also commented that the parents of the children were 'perfectly law-abiding, sensible people who cared for their children'.

You can read the rest of the story at the BJP website.

Now, apart from being a stark reminder of the over-hyped panic over photographing children that has meant people are scared even to take photos of their own kids' important moments such as school plays and sports, I always thought that there was a test called "mens rea" in English Law in which the intent of the perpetrator of an action was taken into account - you have to intend to commit a crime as well as actually carry out the criminal act. Also, I thought we had a sentence available called an "absolute discharge" which it seems to me from the judge's comments would have been more appropriate in this case. Have both of these concepts gone? Where? And when?

It seems you no longer have to intend to commit a crime, let alone know that your actions could be criminal, to be convicted and sentenced, and no doubt with a case like this involving children, have your reputation and possibly career torn to shreds. Which seems to me to be a pretty serious erosion of our legal rights.

Earlier this evening I found a quotation by Clement Atlee about Habeas Corpus on the Total Politics political quotations database:

"The real test of one's belief in the doctrine of Habeas Corpus is not when one demands its application on behalf of one's friends but of one's enemies."

It must be even more important to preserve our right to be judged by our intentions; there are all sorts of situations in which people could be committing a crime unknowingly and harming nobody in the process.

Hat Tip to the Libertarian Alliance Yahoo Groups mailing list.