Bateman, R. v

Bateman, R. v

The court held that the distinction between possession and production is not rigid; an image can be a hybrid. The judge correctly categorised count 8 as production due to the creative alteration for sexual gratification, and the sentencing approach was fair, considering the totality of offending.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Paul Michael Bateman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Indecent Images, Voyeurism, Totality Principle
Criminal Law Sentencing Sexual Offences Indecent Images Voyeurism Totality Principle

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Paul Michael Bateman

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Distinction between 'possession' and 'production' under Sentencing Council Guidelines for indecent images
  2. 2 Application of totality principle in sentencing where production images are included

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the distinction between possession and production is not rigid; an image can be a hybrid. The judge correctly categorised count 8 as production due to the creative alteration for sexual gratification, and the sentencing approach was fair, considering the totality of offending.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • sentence of 4 years imprisonment upheld
  • indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order maintained