criminal-law united-kingdom england-and-wales
Rape video on phone
<p>This question is for England-and-Wales only and relates to criminal Law.</p>

<p>If the police were to search a suspect's phone, although I doubt it makes any difference as to whatever the device is, what crime would have been committed if the suspect had downloaded two separate rape videos - I am interested to know under what section of what Act? Previous case Law would also be interesting, but I think that I cannot search for this until I know the specific Act. </p>

<p>If they were unaware that the videos were real, instead arguing they assumed it was porn given the realistic nature of certain adult entertainment, what would they be convicted for?</p>

<p>If the person shared one of these videos with a friend would they have committed a further offence - if so what?</p>

<p>To clarify - the two videos showed an adult male getting a long stick pushed up his anal cavity by other adult males. The videos had not been deleted and were accessible on his Android phone.</p>

<p>I tried my best to search for laws online, but the links covered porn videos that were overly realistic, not a real life rape with an actual victim.</p>

<p>Excuse the gross nature of this question and apologise if I missed the NSFW option.</p>

<p>This sounds like it would fall under the "extreme pornography" part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheading/pornography-etc" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 63</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,</p>
    
    <p>and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real. </p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>(7A) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, either of the following—</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>(b) an act which involves the non-consensual sexual penetration of a person's vagina or anus by another with a part of the other person's body or anything else,</p>
    
    <p>and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.</p>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>What you describe would likely result in serious injury to the victim, and the video appears to be non-consensual.</p>

<p>Note that the actual origin is not relevant; if the videos were actually a brilliant piece of special effects and no anuses were harmed that gets you nowhere. The only thing that matters is what a "reasonable person" looking at the videos would have thought. Context might make a difference; if the videos were made by an identifiable company then a reasonable person might assume the producers would have at least obtained consent and complied with their local laws about safety. OTOH if they look like they were filmed on someone's phone and downloaded from some sketchy file-sharing site then a jury is likely to see this as suggesting to the "reasonable person" that the acts shown were real and non-consensual.</p>

<p><strong>Edit</strong> in response to comment:</p>

<p>The law in question says '<em>An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal</em>'. So it can still be porn even if it wasn't filmed consensually. If "pornography" could only refer to consensual images then the prosecution would need to obtain evidence of the consent or otherwise of the participants. This might be impossible if a participant is dead or cannot be identified. Also the definition above matches both the dictionary definition and most people's idea of what makes something "porn"; the point of porn is sexual arousal.</p>
