GP guilty of bestiality pornography and an indecent image

GP guilty of bestiality pornography and an indecent image

5
SHARE

Introduction

On 1st September 2016 Cyprian Okoro, a GP from South London, was found guilty at the Old Bailey off six ‘pornography offences’.

These were one count of indecent images – an ‘indecent video of a two-year-old boy‘ (no more details available), and five of extreme pornography – in this case videos of bestiality.

These appeared to consist of a video of a man having sex with a snake (it’s not clear how exactly), one of a woman having sex with a horse, and three of people having sex with a dog.

It seems that Dr Okoro had received all of these videos on WhatsApp, and had stored them on his phone (the law on this can get quite complicated -see here for a recent example)

Sentence was adjourned until 30th September 2016.

 

What will he get?

The jury were told, after they had convicted Dr Okoro, that he has one previous conviction for Sexual Assault in 2014, for which he was given a Suspended Sentence.

It isn’t clear whether these images were found during the investigation of the Sexual Assault matter, or afterwards. If it is the latter, then it may be that this would put him in breach of the suspended sentence. If that’s the case, then he is pretty much guaranteed to go to prison.

Either way, the starting point is the Sentencing Guidelines – see page 75. This relates to the indecent image offence, there aren’t any guidelines for the extreme pornography.

The sentence will depend very much on what the image was of (see the table at page 77) – it ranges from a Community Order up to 3 years, although the fact that there was only one is a strong mitigating feature.

We will return to this when he is sentence, or when there is more information.

 

SHARE
Dan is a barrister at 2 Dr. Johnson’s Buildings practising in crime.

5 COMMENTS

  1. Re “the fact that there was only one is a strong mitigating feature”: whilst the guidelines (page 78) list high volume as aggravation, they do *not* list low volume as mitigation. Indeed, the very fact that high volume appears on the list of aggravating factors does tend to suggest that the Sentencing Council have had an obvious opportunity to consider whether to list low volume analogously as a mitigating factor and have declined to do so. That being the case, I don’t see how it would justify a downward adjustment from the starting point.

    Recently I was reading the sentencing comments in some other case (I forget which) in which there had been three indecent images. Even though many *thousands* of images are sadly sometimes reported in other cases, the judge’s comments drew specific attention to the fact that he was not describing three as “only” three. Three are three too many. Likewise, one is one too many.

    I also note that, separately, age and/or vulnerability of the child depicted is listed as an aggravating factor with a footnote stating that it should be given significant weight. You report “a two-year-old”. So this ought surely to count as considerable aggravation within any given category.

LEAVE A REPLY