Lord Justice Richards said it was "very unfair" that Stephen Neal, 59, was pursued by the law for having four artistic photo books - which prosecutors claimed contained "level one" child porn - when the books' publishers and retailers who sold them were left alone.Ah, but you see the books’ publishers and retailers have teams of lawyers on retainer, all the better to see off the useless, lazy, incompetent failed lawyers in the CPS.
"If the Crown Prosecution Service wishes to test whether the pictures in the books are indecent, the right way to deal with the matter is by way of prosecuting the publisher or retailer - not the individual purchaser," he told the court.There’s a reason jackals don’t target the strong, healthy members of the herd. Those horns and hooves can hurt…
Lord Justice Richards, sitting with Mr Justice Eady and Sir Christopher Holland, said all the books discovered at Mr Neal's home were "widely available from a number of reputable outlets".It’s a surprise? Really?
Sally Mann's "Still Time" was also on sale at a London art gallery last summer, he added, but no action had been taken against the gallery by the CPS.
"Against this background, it is a matter of surprise that charges were brought against this individual in respect of the pictures," said the judge.
It seems this all stemmed from yet another botched trial:
Mr Neal had also been charged with possessing an "extreme" pornographic DVD, but was cleared of that allegation on the trial judge's direction.It seems the CPS hate to lose face even more than some inscrutable Eastern warlord:
"It is legitimate to wonder if such charges would have been brought against him but for his prosecution in relation to the DVD".It is indeed legitimate. Unlike the CPS lawyers’ parentage.
And despite this slapdown, they didn’t seem to quite get the message:
The Crown Prosecution Service's application for a retrial was refused after Lord Justice Richards concluded that re-prosecuting Mr Neal was "not in the public interest".But investigating this shocking waste of public money by the CPS would indeed be ‘in the public interest’. So why isn't anyone doing it?