翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ R-kioski
・ R-Kive
・ R-labialization
・ R-linalool synthase
・ R-Line
・ R-Line (Capital Area Transit)
・ R v Wigglesworth
・ R v Williams
・ R v Wong
・ R v Woodrow
・ R v Woollin
・ R v Wray
・ R v Zikalala
・ R v Zinn
・ R v Zundel
R v. Fellows; R v. Arnold
・ R Virginis
・ R Viswanathan
・ R W B Stephens Medal
・ R W Roden
・ R with stroke
・ R with tail
・ R Zarni
・ R&B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd
・ R&B Divas
・ R&B Divas (album)
・ R&B from the Marquee
・ R&B Junkie
・ R&B Records
・ R&B Showcase (magazine)


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

R v. Fellows; R v. Arnold : ウィキペディア英語版
R v. Fellows; R v. Arnold
''R v. Fellows; R v. Arnold'' () 1 Cr App R 244; () 2 All E.R. 548, is a prominent English case on the statutory interpretation of section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, and the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the definitions have since been amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Court of Appeal held that data on a computer that represents the original photograph is a copy of a photograph under the 1978 Act, therefore, downloading an indecent photograph from the internet constitutes making a copy or reproduction of an indecent photograph.
==Facts==

The first appellant, Alban Fellows, had stored digital images on his employer’s computer that enabled users to both display and print indecent pictures of children. These materials could also be accessed on the Internet, allowing others to view and duplicate these images. The extensive digital library, viewable on the Internet, encompassed numerous explicit images of children and was called ''The Archive.'' Only the users who were given a password by Fellows, could access the archive. Fellows selected to whom a password was given on the basis of recommendations given by other users. Those people who provided similar data uploads to increase the archive were also rewarded with a password. The second appellant, Steven Arnold, was one such user who assisted in the overall growth of the archive.
At trial, Fellows was convicted on four offences of possessing indecent photographs of children that could be displayed or distributed to others, contrary to 1 (1)(c) under the ''Children’s Act'' of 1978, which prohibits possessing such indecent photographs with the intention to have them distributed or shown. This was also in defiance of the ''Obscene Publications Act'' of 1959.
Arnold was convicted with three offences of distributing and showing indecent photographs of children, contrary to 1 (1)(b), which prohibits distributing or showing such indecent photographs.
The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. They also appealed against their convictions.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「R v. Fellows; R v. Arnold」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.