The Defendant, Mr D, was charged with indecent assault.  Mr D's computer was seized and was found to contain images of children.  Mr D's counsel was of the view that the witness testimony regarding the assault was not adequate to secure a conviction and that the prosecution needed their case to include evidence of the images found on the computer.  The prosecution evidence included about a dozen "samples" of the images found on Mr D's computer.  Mr D was not charged with regard to these images.

At an early hearing, the police informally gave the defence solicitors a full listing of Internet accesses from Mr D's computer.  The solicitor's understood this report to show the dates and times that Mr D's computer had been used to access the Internet.  Mr D was able to provide strong evidence to show that he was not at home for many of the dates and times in the police report.

My instructions were to examine Mr D's computer and prepare a report of the dates that the computer had accessed the Internet to provide confirmation of the police report.  I inspected the computer and prepared a report.   The report is here...   At a subsequent meeting with counsel, I was shown the police report for the first time and was initially embarrassed to find that the dates in my report were different to the dates in the police report.  Subsequent investigation showed that the dates in my report were correct and that there had been a misunderstanding regarding the dates in the police report.  I was asked to prepare a second report to clarify the various dates being quoted regarding Internet access.  This report is here...  Mr D did not have alibis for the correct dates of Internet access.

Mr D continued to deny responsibility for the images on his computer and suggested that the images must be the result of someone "hacking" into his computer or of contamination after the computer was seized.  I was asked to investigate hacking and contamination and prepared an letter that showed that hacking and contamination were not at all likely.  The letter is here...

At a pre-trial hearing, defense Counsel argued to minimise the effect of the evidence regarding images on Mr D's computer.  I gave evidence on the second day of the hearing to clarify any misunderstandings that may have arisen on the first day.