CPS News Brief

Dr Majeed Ridha charged over supply of abortion drug

Baljit Ubhey, CPS London Chief Crown Prosecutor, said:

"The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised the Metropolitan Police Service to charge Dr Majeed Ridha with allegedly encouraging or assisting either (i) the administration of a drug called Misoprostol with intent to procure a miscarriage or (ii) the supply of a drug called Misoprostol for the purpose of procuring a miscarriage. This charge relates to an investigation by The Sunday Times newspaper involving an undercover journalist conducted in September 2012.

“Dr Ridha faces a charge of encouraging or assisting an offence, contrary to section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. He is alleged to have encouraged an offence under either section 58 or section 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

"This decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have determined that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

"Dr Ridha will appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court on 10 April 2014.

“We have also decided that no further action should be taken in relation to a pharmacist who was also connected with the same investigation by The Sunday Times newspaper, as we determined that there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.

“May I remind all concerned that Dr Ridha has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further."

Background

Under s46 of the Serious Crime Act, the prosecution can allege that a defendant encouraged one or more offences. Our duty is to select the most appropriate offence. Parliament allows this form of charging where encouragement of assistance might relate to one or more offence.

Peter Ball (Former Bishop of Gloucester and Lewes) – Charging decision

The Crown Prosecution Service has reviewed the evidence gathered by Sussex Police during its investigation into allegations of abuse by Peter Ball, formerly the Bishop of Gloucester and Bishop of Lewes. Mr Ball, 82, will be prosecuted for misconduct in public office and indecent assault.

Jaswant Narwal, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS South East, said:

“After a thorough and careful review, I have decided that Peter Ball should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office and two indecent assaults. It is alleged that he sexually abused a number of young males between 1977 and 1992. The misconduct alleged is that he misused his position and authority to manipulate and prevail upon others for his own sexual gratification. During this time Mr Ball was serving as a Bishop in the Church of England.

“In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute. Criminal proceedings are now underway and the defendant has a right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

The charges are:

• Misconduct in public office between 1977 and 1992
• Indecent assault on a boy, aged 12 or 13, in 1978
• Indecent assault on a man, aged 19 or 20, between 1980 and 1982

Mr Ball will appear at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on 10 April 2014.

Soldier charged with explosives and terrorism offences

Jane Stansfield, of the Crown Prosecution Service Counter Terrorism Division, said:

“Following an investigation by police of the North West Counter Terrorism Command, we have today authorised charges against Ryan Adam McGee, a serving Rifleman with 5th Battalion the Rifles at the time of his arrest.

“It is alleged that between 31 May 2012 and 29 November 2013, Ryan Adam McGee had possession of a document or record for terrorist purposes, namely a copy of the “Anarchist Cookbook”.

He has been charged with one offence contrary to 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is also alleged that Ryan Adam McGee, between September 1 and 30 2013 made an improvised explosive and has therefore also been charged with one offence contrary to section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.

"This decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have determined that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

"Ryan Adam McGee will appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court on 2 April 2014.

“May I remind all concerned that Ryan Adam McGee has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further."

CPS decision - Suspected fraud investigated by Northamptonshire Police

Malcolm McHaffie, Deputy Head of the CPS Special Crime Division, said:

“The CPS received a file of evidence from Northamptonshire Police in relation to a 54-year-old woman and her 61-year-old husband on 13 November 2013. Having carefully considered all of the available evidence, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, we have decided there is insufficient evidence to charge any criminal offence.

“We were asked to consider whether there was a case for fraud by abuse of position and theft by disposal of assets belonging to the woman’s mother. We were also asked to consider whether there was a case of fraud by false representation to Northamptonshire Council in relation to the mother’s assets.

“The evidence showed: firstly that the woman’s mother considered the suspects’ conduct to be acceptable; secondly that the suspects acted openly in declaring the sale of the mother’s house to the Council; thirdly that no element of dishonesty could be proved. Therefore we have advised the police to take no further action.

“We understand there is ongoing civil litigation. For the avoidance of doubt our advice to police relates solely to possible criminal action.”

Derbyshire priest sentenced for historic child abuse

A former priest from Derbyshire has been sentenced to 15 years in jail for over twenty sexual offences against young people, dating back over several decades.

The offences were described by Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor Janine Smith as ‘a betrayal of trust that devastated the lives of his victims’.

Francis Paul Cullen pleaded guilty to offences including indecent assault on a male, indecency with a child and attempted buggery, all relating to attacks he carried out on seven people aged between seven and 15-years-old between 1957 and 1991.

As a parish priest in Derbyshire, and later in Nottingham, Cullen preyed on children and young people, using his position as a parish priest to gain unsupervised access to his child victims and commit acts of sexual abuse on them.

He was arrested in 1991, but fled while on bail. He was discovered in Tenerife and in 2013 he was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant to face charges against three of his victims.

As a result of this news, four other victims came forward to report crimes he had committed against them.

Janine Smith, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor at CPS East Midlands, said:

“As a Catholic priest, Francis Paul Cullen was a trusted member of his community and held in high regard by his parishioners. Yet right from the very start of his ministry, he was abusing children – boys and girls – in his pastoral care. This was a betrayal of trust that devastated the lives of his victims, affecting many of them well into their adult years.

“Bringing Francis Cullen to justice has been a complex matter, with separate approaches to overseas jurisdictions as the case progressed. When preparing the case for trial, it was important to ensure the court could hear the full account of his criminality and a lot of hard work went into making this possible. His guilty pleas a week before the trial meant that his crimes can be dealt with without his victims having to go through the ordeal of describing what happened to them in court.

“This case very clearly demonstrates that no matter how long ago sexual abuse was committed, victims can see justice done. Perpetrators of these offences have nowhere to hide.”

Two charged over the traceability of horsemeat

Sue Patten, Head of Fraud at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

"Following a joint investigation by the Food Standards Agency, Dyfed Powys Police and Calderdale Council, criminal proceedings have been instituted against two individuals for failing to comply with the traceability requirements of horses slaughtered at and sold from premises in Todmorden, West Yorkshire.

"It is alleged that Peter Boddy, owner of a West Yorkshire slaughterhouse and game dealer, and David Moss, the manager of the slaughterhouse, failed to comply with traceability requirements for horses slaughtered at their premises, contrary to regulation 4 of the General Food Regulations 2004. They are charged with two counts of this offence between 1 July 2012 and 12 February 2013. In addition, David Moss is charged with one count of forgery relating to an allegedly falsified invoice for the sale of horse meat. This offence is contrary to s.1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

"The decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. It has been determined that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

"The case was heard administratively this morning but none of the defendants attended court. All individuals will appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court on 14 April 2014.

"May I remind all concerned that these individuals have a right to a fair trial. It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further."

Background

• Regulations applied to the food industry indicate that a product should have traceability from the field of the farm the animal grazed on right through to when it arrives on the plate of the final consumer. The traceability principles indicate that at each stage of the process the Food Business Operator should be able to provide details of its movement i.e. where the animal came from and to whom it was supplied.

• The Crown Prosecution Service continues to liaise with the City of London Police on a separate fraud investigation. We await final materials before being able to make a charging decision.

• It is not alleged that this horse meat was being sold as another meat.

Two charged over the mislabelling of goat meat

Sue Patten, Head of Fraud at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“Following a joint investigation by the Food Standards Agency, Dyfed Powys Police and Ceredigion Council, criminal proceedings have been instituted against two individuals and a company in relation to the alleged mislabelling of goat meat products intended for sale.

"It is alleged that on or about 12 February 2013, Dafydd Raw-Rees, the owner and Food Business Operator of Farmbox Meats Limited in Aberystwyth and Colin Patterson, the company representative, mislabelled goat meat as either lamb or mutton for the purposes of sale. They are to be charged with 19 offences contrary to s.15(1) of the Food Safety Act 1990 and one offence of failing to comply with traceability requirements of meat sold by the company, contrary to regulation 4 of the General Food Regulations 2004.

"This decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. It has been determined that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

"The case was heard administratively this morning but none of the defendants attended court. All individuals will appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court on 14 April 2014.

"May I remind all concerned that these individuals have a right to a fair trial. It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further."

Background

• Regulations applied to the food industry indicate that a product should have traceability from the field of the farm the animal grazed on right through to when it arrives on the plate of the final consumer. The traceability principles indicate that at each stage of the process the Food Business Operator should be able to provide details of its movement i.e. where the animal came from and to whom it was supplied.

• The Crown Prosecution Service continues to liaise with the City of London Police on a separate fraud investigation. We await final materials before being able to make a charging decision.

CPS announces first prosecutions for female genital mutilation

The Director of Public Prosecutions has today announced the first ever prosecutions under the Female Genital Mutilation Act.

Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, said:

“The CPS was asked to consider evidence in relation to this allegation of female genital mutilation (FGM) by the Metropolitan Police Service. It was alleged that following a patient giving birth in November 2012, a doctor at the Whittington Hospital, in London, repaired FGM that had previously been performed on the patient, allegedly carrying out FGM himself.

“Having carefully considered all the available evidence, I have determined there is sufficient evidence and it would be in the public interest to prosecute Dr Dhanuson Dharmasena for an offence contrary to S1 (1) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act (2003).

“I have also determined that Hasan Mohamed should face one charge of intentionally encouraging an offence of FGM, contrary to section 44(1) of the Serious Crime Act (2007), and a second charge of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring Dr Dharmasena to commit an offence contrary to S1 (1) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act (2003).

“These decisions were taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“Dr Dharmasena and Hasan Mohamed will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 15 April.

“May I remind all those concerned that these individuals have a right to a fair trial and it is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

This was the first time this case was considered by the CPS. We have also reached a decision in one other new case and in relation to three of the four cases being re-reviewed by the CPS, following previous decisions to take no further action.

After careful consideration of all the available evidence and other potential further lines of inquiry, we have determined there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a realistic prospect of conviction and that no further action should be taken in relation to these four cases.

1)      New case

This new potential case of FGM was referred to CPS London by police in December 2013. It was alleged that whilst abroad two parents had arranged for their daughter to be subjected to a type of female genital mutilation involving a small pinprick.

The potential victim was medically examined and there was no physical evidence that any procedure had been performed, this is not unusual when the alleged FGM is of the type described.

Neither the suspects nor the potential victim were UK nationals or permanent UK residents at the time of the alleged offence and, as a result, the suspects could not be prosecuted under the FGM Act for an act committed abroad. There is no evidence to suggest any offence has been committed in the UK.

We have determined there is insufficient evidence to charge the suspects with any other offences and that no further action should be taken in this case.

2)      Re-review

This case was re-reviewed after it was first investigated in February 2012, following which the police decided no further action should be taken.

It was alleged that the suspect contacted an FGM helpline after misunderstanding its purpose and instead rang the advertised number to request the circumcision of his two daughters.

In order to prosecute an individual for commissioning an offence under the FGM Act, the prosecution must be able to demonstrate that they have committed an act that goes further than simply preparing to commit the offence.

As a result of this case being re-reviewed, further investigative enquiries were undertaken to establish whether any additional evidence might be available to demonstrate this to the criminal standard.

No additional evidence came to light and we have determined that no further action should be taken, as there remains insufficient evidence to demonstrate a realistic prospect of conviction.

We are unable to provide further detail on the other two re-reviewed cases at this time.

Background

• Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has been a specific criminal offence in England and Wales since 1985 when the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) was passed.

• The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) repealed and replaced the 1985 Act in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It also made it an offence for UK nationals or permanent UK residents to carry out FGM abroad, or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of FGM abroad, even in countries where the practice is legal. The maximum penalty was also increased from 5 years to 14 years imprisonment.

• Under section 1(1) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act (2003) a person is guilty of an offence if he excises, infibulates or otherwise mutilates the whole or any part of a girl’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris.

• As of 21 March, the CPS is considering four cases of alleged FGM, one of which is a re-review of a case that was previously been considered and a decision was made that no further action should be taken. We have also had preliminary discussions with police in relation to their investigations into two further cases, which are currently at an early stage.

• CPS submitted written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on FGM in February. This written submission is available here.

Death of Jimmy Mubenga – Charging decisions following inquest

The Crown Prosecution Service has reviewed the evidence relating to the tragic death of Jimmy Mubenga in October 2010.

We had previously decided in July 2012 that no charges should be brought in relation to Mr Mubenga’s death. In accordance with a memorandum of understanding between prosecutors, coroners and the police, the case was reconsidered by the CPS following the verdict of unlawful killing at the inquest. All new evidence from the inquest was taken into account during this review.

The detainee custody officers

In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the decision now is that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Colin Kaler, Terrence Hughes and Stuart Tribelnig to be prosecuted for manslaughter.

All three defendants were employed by G4S Care and Justice Services UK Limited (G4S) as detainee custody officers at the time of Mr Mubenga’s death and were tasked with removing him from the United Kingdom to Angola. They will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 7 April 2014.

Malcolm McHaffie, Deputy Head of CPS Special Crime, said:

“We have completed a fresh review of all of the evidence relating to the death of Jimmy Mubenga, including the new evidence arising from the inquest, and decided that three men should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

“There is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute Colin Kaler, Terrence Hughes and Stuart Tribelnig.

“Criminal proceedings are now underway and the defendants have a right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

G4S Care and Justice Services UK Limited

The CPS also considered whether G4S should be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter. Because of the date and circumstances of this death, in this case the offence exists both at common law (law developed by the courts over time) and under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

To prove corporate manslaughter at common law, the CPS would require evidence capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that a ‘controlling mind’ in the corporation – such as the chief executive officer – was personally guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence.

A prosecution under the 2007 Act would require proof to the criminal standard that the way in which G4S’s activities were managed or organised was a cause of death and amounted to a gross breach of a duty of care towards the deceased. Additionally, this offence would only be made out if it could also be proved that the way in which G4S’s activities were managed or organised by its senior management was a substantial element in the gross breach.

In considering potential corporate offences by G4S, the training available to (and undertaken by) its staff has been taken into account. In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute G4S for either offence and, due to the fact that related proceedings are now active, it would be inappropriate to comment further.

We will be writing to the family of Mr Mubenga to explain our decision making, to offer a meeting should they so wish and again offer our condolences.

Notes to editors

• The inquest jury was not asked to determine whether specific criminal offences had been committed by particular individuals. Legal advice should be sought before linking the verdict of the inquest with any individual.
• Colin Kaler is 51 and from Bedfordshire; Terrence Hughes is 53 and from Hampshire; Stuart Tribelnig is 38 and from Surrey.
• The defendants are charged with unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter as alternatives. There is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction with regards to both offences and a jury will decide whether either offence was committed.

Royal Barnes jailed for inciting terrorism overseas

Royal Barnes was today jailed at the Old Bailey for five years and four months for inciting terrorism overseas, contrary to section 59 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and three counts of disseminating terrorist publications, contrary to section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006. He pleaded guilty to these offences on 12 February 2014. His wife, Rebekah Dawson, had previously pleaded guilty to three counts of disseminating terrorist publications and was today jailed for 20 months.

Mari Reid, of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Counter Terrorism Division, said:

“While the whole country was unified in grief and horror in the wake of Fusilier Lee Rigby’s death last year, Royal Barnes and his wife sought to take advantage of the situation to promote their extremist views. Royal Barnes went further, using the savage attack on Fusilier Rigby to encourage others, via Facebook, to murder British, French and American soldiers.

“These were not throwaway comments from a thoughtless individual, but the hardened beliefs of an extremist.

“We pride ourselves in Britain on allowing the right to free speech to flourish. But the vile views posted online by Royal Barnes and Rebekah Dawson justified and glorified terrorist attacks, and tried to foster hatred in our communities.” 

CPS decisions in Operation Sacristy – investigation into Cleveland Police and Cleveland Police Authority

Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, said:

“Operation Sacristy was a wide-ranging and detailed investigation into suspected criminal offences in connection with the administration of Cleveland Police and Cleveland Police Authority.

“Following their thorough and professional investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service has received detailed reports and a substantial quantity of evidence from the Operation Sacristy investigation team. It is right that this case was passed to us to determine whether or not criminal charges should be brought and the reports and the evidence underlying them have been considered in great detail by senior lawyers within the Special Crime Division of the CPS, overseen by Malcolm McHaffie, Deputy Head of that division. We have also sought advice from both an experienced junior counsel specialising in fraud and corruption and by Queen’s Counsel.

“The allegations related to the procurement process surrounding contracts procured by Cleveland Police and the relationship between the contracted organisations, the police force and police authority; expenses claimed by senior members of Cleveland Police and Police Authority; the remuneration of a senior police officer and redundancy payments made to two individuals. The CPS considered whether or not six suspects should be prosecuted in relation to these allegations, as well as considering the peripheral roles of two further suspects. Three additional suspects are the subject of an ongoing investigation and we have therefore not made any decision in respect of them.

“This case has been reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which requires that prosecutors consider whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and whether or not it would be in the public interest to prosecute.

“A realistic prospect of conviction means that a conviction is more likely than not.  In considering whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the test makes it plain that it is not just the prosecution evidence or approach which should be considered, but also the likely defence case and prosecutors must consider all the evidence carefully.  As a matter of law, a prosecution for corruption, fraud or for the criminal offence of misconduct in public office requires more than, for example, poor administration, maladministration or breaches of rules and procedures.

“Having thoroughly reviewed the reports and evidence we have determined that, whatever criticisms may be made about the conduct of the various suspects, including any police discipline findings, the available evidence does not give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction in connection with conduct relating to the administration of Cleveland Police and Cleveland Police Authority.  There can therefore be no prosecution of the individuals considered. 

• In relation to the contracts procured by Cleveland Police that were considered by the CPS, record keeping and compliance with procedures was often poor, and we have concluded the evidence does not show the necessary direct causal links between the awarding of contracts (or allegations of advantageous treatment) and any alleged rewards and inducements offered or received. There was also evidence that would clearly undermine the allegation

• In relation to the cost of trips undertaken by senior staff, the evidence is not sufficient to prove dishonesty to a criminal standard, which would be required for any prosecution of fraud by abuse of position. There was also insufficient evidence to show a wilful breach of established rules or regulations, which would be required to prosecute for an offence of misconduct in public office.

• We do not consider that there is sufficient evidence of criminal offending in relation to the remuneration of a senior police officer. The evidence indicates this remuneration was openly supported by members of the police authority.

• Finally, we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute two individuals who received redundancy payments from Cleveland Police Authority. It was alleged that these individuals orchestrated increases to their own redundancy payments. The evidence indicates that both individuals acted openly, and there is insufficient evidence to prove either dishonesty or a knowing breach of rules or regulations on the part of the recipients, which would be required for a prosecution.

“All of the conduct has been considered collectively as well as on an individual basis. However, for any prosecution to be brought, including for any potential conspiracy or corruption offences, there must be sufficient evidence to demonstrate clear, defined instances of criminality. For the reasons set out above, we do not consider this to be the case and have advised the police that no further action should be taken in relation to the matters set out above either individually or collectively.

“In relation to two relatively minor allegations over expenses the CPS has also decided that a prosecution should not take place.”

 

Operation Globe: Woman charged with indecent images offences

A 38-year-old woman has been charged with offences relating to the possession and distribution of indecent images.

Suzanne Thomas, Senior Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service Wales, said:

“As part of a wider police investigation, the CPS was asked by South Wales Police to review evidence files relating to alleged offences committed by Joanne Mjadzelics.

“I have reviewed this evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Joanne Mjadzelics with four counts of possession of an indecent image, two counts of distributing an indecent image and one count of encouraging another to distribute an indecent image.

“Accordingly, I have authorised South Wales Police to charge Ms Mjadzelics with these offences and she has been bailed to appear before Cardiff Magistrates’ Court on 21 March.

“May I remind all concerned that Joanne Mjadzelics has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.”

Notes to Editors:

Joanne Mjadzelics has been charged with:

• Four counts of possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4), contrary to Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offences dated between 7 May 2011 and 16 May 2011)

• Two counts of distributing an indecent image of a child (level 1), contrary to Section 1 (1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (offences dated 30 September 2011)

• One count of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence of distributing and indecent image of a child, contrary to Section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (offence dated between 9 May 2011 and 17 May 2011)

The full charges are set out as follows:

1. On the 7th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

2. On the 8th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

3. On the 8th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

4. On the 16th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

5. Between the 9th May 2011 and the 17th May 2011 you did an act, namely asked Ian Watkins to send you an indecent image of a child, which was capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an either way offence, namely distributing an indecent image of a child, believing that the offence would be committed and that your act would encourage or assist in its commission. Contrary to S.45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007

6. On the 30th September 2011 you distributed an indecent image of a child (level 1) Contrary to S.1 (1)(b) Protection of Children Act 1978

7. On the 30th September 2011 you distributed an indecent image of a child (level 1) Contrary to S.1 (1)(b) Protection of Children Act 1978