Convicted of uploading altered FB photos to porn site - "making a false report"

AndrewJRenko

From http://www.clarechampion.ie/facebook-images-uploaded-to-porn-site/

admitted to 30 charges of knowingly making a false report tending to show that an offence had been committed, contrary to Section 12 of the Criminal Law Act 1976.

It was fairly scurrilous behaviour, but how is uploading a FB photo 'making a false report to show that an offence had been committed'?

The only possibility that I can think of is that he captioned the photos to suggest that under-age sex had taken place, but it still seems a bit of a stretch.

Would this have been the only offence that he could have been charged with?

Samuel T. Cogley

For the purposes of discussion:


12.—Any person who—

(a) knowingly makes a false report or statement tending to show that an offence has been committed, whether by himself or another person, or tending to give rise to apprehension for the safety of persons or property, or

(b) knowingly makes a false report or statement tending to show that he has information material to any inquiries by the Garda Síochána and thereby causes the time of the Garda Síochána to be wastefully employed,

I could see how it could fall under subsection 1 - just about...

hullaballoo

I can't see that at all. Unless there was an allegation of criminal impropriety in the captions he used.

ohnonotgmail

hullaballoo wrote: »

I can't see that at all. Unless there was an allegation of criminal impropriety in the captions he used.

maybe the captions he added intimated that the ladies were available for sexual services of a commercial nature? It's really hard to tell based on that article.

BrokenArrows

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

maybe the captions he added intimated that the ladies were available for sexual services of a commercial nature? It's really hard to tell based on that article.

Ya id say that was the most likely scenaro.
But bit of an odd one to charge him with. Probably just because anything else would be a serious conviction and they probably didnt want to destroy the kid because of a stupid decision.

AndrewJRenko

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Ya id say that was the most likely scenaro.
But bit of an odd one to charge him with. Probably just because anything else would be a serious conviction and they probably didnt want to destroy the kid because of a stupid decision.

Any ideas on what kind of other charges could apply to this scenario?

Samuel T. Cogley

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

maybe the captions he added intimated that the ladies were available for sexual services of a commercial nature? It's really hard to tell based on that article.

Or possibly gave rise to a concern for their safety, was my thinking anyway.

Sorry at work so dipping in and out.

Kimbot

Well if the pictures were of a sexual nature (i.e. if they photoshopped a banana into their hand etc) then this is what he was charged for. He has altered the pictures in some manner to show an illegal act basically.

Samuel T. Cogley

I think the specualtion in this thread is going to reveal way more about us than anything else! :pac:

Kimbot

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I think the specualtion in this thread is going to reveal way more about us than anything else! :pac:

Well there was more reporting done on this earlier in the week. What I had heard is that all the girls were under the age of consent at the time the pictures were uploaded so it all stems from that. I cant remember the specifics but I will try get a link with more details.

hullaballoo

That's a lot more sinister all right. There are a few other charges I can think of in that case.

Robbo

As an aside, there's been a lot of talk (politicians, mainly) about how current legislation cannot deal with "revenge porn" type scenarios. Mostly arrant nonsense from those who have be seen to be doing something to deal with a perceived issue. Hats off to those prosecuting this matter.

AndrewJRenko

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Or possibly gave rise to a concern for their safety, was my thinking anyway.
.

The press report specifically referred to the "making a false report tending to show that an offence had been committed", not the safety part of the Act. And the press are always accurate, right?

jonnycivic wrote: »

Well if the pictures were of a sexual nature (i.e. if they photoshopped a banana into their hand etc) then this is what he was charged for. He has altered the pictures in some manner to show an illegal act basically.

But even if he altered the pictures to show an illegal act, it still doesn't make sense that the offence was: " making a false report tending to show that an offence had been committed".

jonnycivic wrote: »

Well there was more reporting done on this earlier in the week. What I had heard is that all the girls were under the age of consent at the time the pictures were uploaded so it all stems from that. I cant remember the specifics but I will try get a link with more details.

I think the age thing must have been it - the the captions must have specifically alleged that the girls had illegal, underage sex - that would be the 'offence' that he was caught on.

Samuel T. Cogley

I actually ended up getting some info on this from an external source.

Actually makes perfect sense if you knew what the captions said. Let's just say you're not a million miles off and the press was correct in their emphasis.