An Armagh man accused of possessing indecent images of children has been cleared following a contest hearing at the city’s Magistrates’ Court this week.
Marc Evans (36), appeared in court – sitting in Newry – on Tuesday having been charged with possessing indecent photographs of children on August 16, 2023.
During the contest hearing, evidence was supplied by Constable Norton of the PSNI who examined the seized mobile phone as part of the investigation.
He told the court that the images had been labelled as Category C images; two involved a young female child and one was of an older female child.
However, during the course of the hearing it was heard that the two of the three images (of the same person) were “innocent photographs” that had been sent to the defendant and that Evans did not reasonably have a chance to explain the nature of the images to police.
Prosecutor Shea Glasgow explained that the “investigation began as an entirely different set of allegations” and that the images were found as a result, however, after hearing that Evans was not properly interviewed in relation to the images in question, District Judge Anne Marshall questioned: “When was this man ever meant to be able to give his chance to explain that to the police?”
The third image, according to Constable Norton, “wouldn’t normally be user accessible”.
And when asked to explain this by Mr Glasgow, the constable said: “[The user] would probably have to use specialised software or be doing more intricate things with the device. A normal person wouldn’t be able to just go in and [view it], it’s not in their camera roll…it’s something they might not even have been aware that was there. It’s an image saved by the phone, not by the user.”
Applying for the case to be dismissed, defence barrister Conor Coulter – in relation to the third image – said: “I don’t think there’s any way that Your Worship could possibly convict on the basis that police, at the height of their case, accept it would require specialist training and software to access the image, and there’s no proof before the court whatsoever that he ever viewed or accessed the image.”
In relation to the first two images Mr Coulter argued that “if it’s an agreed fact that police had satisfied themselves [in relation to the nature of the photos] and that the images had been sent to him, I don’t think it’s open to find that they’re indecent thereafter.”
Judge Marshall, in summarising, said: “Whatever gave rise to the initial search warrant and seizure of these devices, it is absolutely right and proper these matters are fully investigated…these types of offences are very serious, and people who do have these types of images should be fully investigated and brought before the court.
“Mr. Coulter has raised, on each and every review, his concerns about this particular case and requested this information about who was in the image, where they were stored, [and the nature of the images].”
Judge Marshall contended that Evans “wasn’t really given much of a chance to explain in the interviews [the nature of the images]..
“So in terms of the first two images, I absolutely couldn’t safely leave that case to the jury at this stage.
“And then again, the police have been fair in terms of their evidence today about the third image not being easily accessible, and again, he hasn’t been given a chance to account for this in interview either.”
She added: “The police officers accept that it may have been saved by the phone and not the defendant. Again, I couldn’t safely leave that to a jury.”
Judge Marshall confirmed that there was no case to answer and Evans was free to leave the dock.
