There Seems to be Something Wrong with Our System

Why is Chris Langham on remand?

The comedian, writer and actor was charged with multiple accounts of sexual abuse and assault on a girl who was under the age of 16 at the time, and also with 'making [pornographic] images' of children.

He faced no fewer than 27 counts while sat in the dock, and all of these the local constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service obviously thought valid enough to bring to court.

Despite the fact that Langham actually admitted to downloading the images and keeping them on folders on his computer (and this is what qualifies as 'making' rather than just 'viewing' in situ), he pleaded not guilty. A bizarre defence, and perhaps rather pointless, Langham pursued this course because, as he said in court, he did not want to be labelled as a paedophile.

He was cleared of all charges relating to the girl, but found guilty of all charges relating to the child porn.

Actually, he made a very good point. You see, as the law stands, there is no defence against having images of young people in your possession that can be classed as being pornographic or indecent. That classification is up to the police and subject to confirmation, but about the only way you can provide a reasonable defence is to show that the images are there without your knowledge, and even that doesn't seem very credible. The jury in this case had no choice but to find Langham guilty, whether they liked it or not.

This is, in other words, a situation where there is no presumption of innocence.

This very badly provisioned law is designed to catch paedophiles, rather than to prevent us all from looking at pornographic images, yet it seems that it is achieving the latter and failing at the former.

It IS possible for someone to have such images without being a paedophile. In my judgment, Langham sounded credible in his defence - I don't think he is guilty of any such leanings at all. But he is nevertheless guilty of a crime. And on being found guilty, he was remanded in custody. He is also now (once sentenced) going to be labelled as a sex offender. He almost certainly isn't.

So what good does it do society for a troubled and stupid comic genius to be held in jail? A waste of resources, it seems to me. The guy should be on bail right now, and he should serve a non-custodial sentence. I'm not sure that that is on the tariff, however, and those with big mouths in the media seem very keen to see him stoned to death. Apparently, in more than one case, it is said he should rot in jail because he was arrogant enough to believe he could download such filth and get away with it.

That's not justice, and I'm sick and tired of the British courts being the scene of example setting. The lady with the scales and the blindfold would not be pleased.