Commission of Child Sex Offences Online: Hugh Nelson Jailed for 18 years for Child Sex Offences Including Making and Distributing Indecent Images of Children

Nelson had pleaded guilty to 16 offences relating to the sexual abuse of children of which include making indecent images of children, distribution of indecent images of children, intentionally encouraging or assisting the commission of the rape of a child under the age 13 and attempting to incite a child aged under 16 years to engage in sexual activity. The offences were committed online where the defendant was the administrator of an encrypted chat room whereby likeminded individuals discussed the abuse of children, bought and exchanged indecent images of children. 

This is an extremely lengthy sentence, and in addition to the long custodial sentence Nelson would have been made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) and the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Register for life. 

Making an indecent image of a child can have many meanings; to download, to take, to permit to be taken, to open an attachment containing an image, storing an image in a directory on a computer, accessing a pornographic website whereby indecent images appear as a pop up, receiving an image via social media, and live streaming of images.

It is an offence under section 1(1)(a)of the Protection of Children Act 1978 for a person to make an indecent image of a child. Making is usually the offence a suspect will be charged with rather than possession. When a device is seized, it may be the case that an image is stored in such a way that it is not possible to say that the suspect possessed it, because it is not accessible to them. For a person to be in possession of an indecent image of a child, they must have custody and control over the image and must be able to access the image. Therefore, making is the preferred charge, where all the prosecution must prove is that the user of the device knowingly made the image at some stage. 

In the case Hugh Nelson, it appears he was generating indecent image of children using AI technology, taking a real photo of a child and using his knowledge of computer graphics to place that child into a sexual image. He would then put his made images into circulation by distributing them online and would accept payment for doing so. It is said that he made over £5,000 making and selling the indecent images. 

Distribution of indecent images of children is a serious offence, and on its own carried a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. It is an offence under section 1(1)(c) of the Protection of Children Act for a person to have in their possession any indecent images with a view to it being distributed or shown by them to others. The words “with a view to” require that the distribution or showing must be at least one of the suspects purposes, but not necessarily the primary purpose. It seems that proving the intention of Hugh Nelson was not difficult for the prosecution as he was actively taking money from people and orders for his AI generated images. 

Section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 makes it an offence for a person to do an act which is capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and with the intention that they intend to encourage or assist in its commission. The law provides that where it is proved that a person has committed this offence, they have secondary liability for the actual offence. The prosecution would not be required to prove that the encouragement or assistance had a positive effect on the other person’s conduct or the outcome. 

It is a serious offence which carries a lengthy term of imprisonment upon conviction. The court took into consideration that they could not be sure whether or not the encouragement of Hugh Nelson actually led to the commission of any rape of a child. 

An offence charged under s.1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 is commonly seen in sexual offence cases, particularly offences which involve sexual communication. The CPS will charge under the attempts act when the suspect has been talking to an under-cover police officer or hunter group, this is because they were not talking to a real child and it is therefore an attempt to sexually communicate with one, or as in the case of Nelson, incite a child to engage in sexual activity. 

It is known that in Nelson’s case that he was caught by an undercover police officer taking part in a chat room where Nelson was a participant. It is likely that the content of the conversations which would have been recorded by police played a crucial role in providing evidence which ultimately led to his arrest and conviction. 

Following a conviction for an offence listed within schedule 3 or 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is often that in most cases the court will make a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. Such an order will prohibit the defendant from certain activities which relate to the commission of the offences they have been convicted of. In this case it is likely any order will prohibit contact with children and also internet and device use. 

The Sex Offenders Register is going to be a mandatory requirement for Hugh Nelson, and he is likely to be the subject of this for life. However, where a person is made subject to the Sex Offenders Register for life, they can apply for removal from it after being on it for 15 years. The requirements for a person to notify as part of their Sex Offender Requirements begin either upon the entering of a guilty plea, or their release from prison. 

When sentenced Hugh Nelson would have been awarded credit for his guilty pleas to the offences. Credit is given in cases where a defendant pleads guilty at their earliest opportunity. The starting point is for one third reduction to be made from any sentence, this then reduces on a sliding scale as time passes in a case. A defendant pleading guilty close to trial or on the day of trial is unlikely to get much credit, and sometimes non at all. Understanding the principle of credit is very important, and it is essential all defendants are properly advised and guided in respect of credit and any evidence against them. If a person is looking at a considerable amount of years in prison, as Hugh Nelson was, credit can make a huge reduction on final sentence. 

Mitigation was also present by Nelson's barrister. Strong mitigation can assist at sentence, and can move a defendant into lower sentencing brackets. Therefore, thorough preparation for sentence even where a guilty plea is entered is incredibly important. 

At Eventum Legal we represent clients at all stages of proceedings both where guilty pleas are entered, and not guilty pleas. We stand by our clients and build a robust approach to their case to achieve the best possible outcome. With over 25 years combined experience we are able to navigate complex legal issues to ensure the plea our client is entering is in their best interests. We spend the time with clients and prospective clients to ensure they understand their case, possible defence strategies and options. Contact us free of charge for no obligation discussion and guidance on how we can approach your case and provide the legal advice and support you need.