If a person shares child porn with other people but does not send the images to the person, are they guilty of supply?
Absolutely.
As we report in our page one lead story today, you do not have to electronically send child porn images to another person to be guiltyof "supply". All you need to do is allow another person to have access to your own computer, and if they take the images, you are deemed to have supplied.
It is a small but important nuance. And there should not be mitigation for persons who share files this way, as opposed to emailing them.
Malcolm Pritchard, a Kaeo farmer, clearly could not resist the temptation of filling his own computer library with illegal images. He had 227,000 images and 2300 videos stored on his computer.
He had viewed only 5 per cent of them. He also allowed other persons to have access.
Judge Greg Davis believes that the internet era requires a broader understanding of the concept of "supply" - hopefully his comments in sentencing Pritchard have helped.
Legally, there has been some clarification. Morally, there still remains a grey area around persons who view child porn but do not store the images. They are as culpable as Pritchard and are part of the demand that drives the immoral suppliers.
Judge Davis commented in court that the demand for child porn images mean that persons who constituted its viewing market could not claim that viewing or sharing child exploitation images was a "victimless crime".
"That view is simply wrong ... It is precisely because those images are sought that this offending takes place in the first place."
Anyone who searches for child exploitation images on the internet - regardless of whether they then choose to store them - should be subject to imprisonment penalties. If examples are to be made of people like Malcolm Pritchard, then examples should also be made of the thousands shrewd enough to not store images. The technology exists to trace these people - let's see them in court.
