R v Goldman [2001] Crim LR 822
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:38 UTC
Defendant asked a porn film company to make him a video involving children.
CA upheld his conviction for inciting the company to create illegal child pornography, saying that incitement meant persuasion, encouragement or inducement.
In this case Defendant had sent the company a cheque to make the video.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
R v Whitehouse
Defendant was charged with inciting his daughter to commit incest (an “act of gross indecency”) and he pleaded guilty. However, CA said that since “incitement” refers to trying to get another to comm...
R v Clarkson
Defendants watched X rape a woman and did nothing to stop him. However they did nothing to encourage the rape nor was there evidence to show that they intended to encourage the rape. They were convic...
B v DPP
A 14 year old boy asked a 13 year old girl (who he believed to be 14) to perform oral sex on him. He was charged with inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency. He was convicted,...
Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Case of Defendants agreeing to make illegal copies of a cinema’s films and sell them to X. Common law conspiracy to defraud existed without requirement for “deceit” to play a role. Similarly CA said...
R v Olugboja
This was a case where a man told a woman that he would have sex with her (this was after his friend, as he knew, had raped Defendant the same evening, and had now dragged Victim’s friend into the bed...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.