Group Whatsapp - Woman sentenced over child pornography video

Sniipe

This article https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0204/1113077-omo-delpin-omorouyi-court/

What should be the policy if someone is on the receiving end in a group chat?

• Delete the video on whatsapp.
• Delete it locally.
• Ensure that it is also removed from cloud backup.
• Report/Block user to whataspp (What good is this?).
• Leave group - maybe not.
• Report it to the group admin.
• Report it to Guards.

If her story is true then that sounds harsh, even if it was a suspended sentence.

Edit: But... it refers to the video as being of a very young child. Surely if you received that, you'd be bloody sure it was deleted from your device?

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

If her story is true then that sounds harsh, even if it was a suspended sentence.

Agreed, seems very harsh if her version of events is correct.

Sounds like a good way to get somebody you don't like in trouble - they might not take all the steps to fully delete.



As an aside, what a spectacular, magnificent name on the senior counsel for defence:

Garnet Orange SC

wakka12

Seems ridiculously harsh

Oranage2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If her story is true then that sounds harsh, even if it was a suspended sentence.

Edit: But... it refers to the video as being of a very young child. Surely if you received that, you'd be bloody sure it was deleted from your device?

Why did she plead guilty I wonder?

Sounds like the Gardai went after this conviction to hurt the person the were originally searching the house for

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

Agreed, seems very harsh if her version of events is correct.

Sounds like a good way to get somebody you don't like in trouble - they might not take all the steps to fully delete.



As an aside, what a spectacular, magnificent name on the senior counsel for defence:

Heres an idea, next time the Gardai lift one of the Kinahans or Hutch gang members for questioning, get Mary in the office to send him some child porn over whatsapp, and then charge him with possession.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If her story is true then that sounds harsh, even if it was a suspended sentence.

Edit: But... it refers to the video as being of a very young child. Surely if you received that, you'd be bloody sure it was deleted from your device?

Surely if you received it you would straight away report it to the Gardai, it & the person that sent it to you?

Oranage2

Oranage2 wrote: »

Why did she plead guilty I wonder?

Sounds like the Gardai went after this conviction to hurt the person the were originally searching the house for

No it doesn't.
It sounds like the phone was examined by someone trained to do so, who found child porn videos.
Would you suggest the Gardai ignore child porn?

osarusan

bubblypop wrote: »

Surely if you received it you would straight away report it to the Gardai, it & the person that sent it to you?

Should do, but failure to do so is not a crime:

He said his client should have reported the footage to gardaí but did not. Judge Codd noted that this is not a criminal offence.

Actually pretty scary, if her version of events is true, and the article doesn't suggest it was disputed in any way.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I thought the law was "knowingly" in possession of it?

ceadaoin.

I wish people would stop referring to it as child "porn". That is likening it to consensual acts. Its child abuse images and videos.

Yurt2

osarusan wrote: »

Garnet Orange

As an aside, what a spectacular, magnificent name on the senior counsel for defence:

Sounds like the name of a Blindboy Boatclub podcast.

"The Romancing of Garnet Orange"

One would have imagined had she not plead guilty she could have walked out without a conviction. On the face of it, there appeared to be no mental component to the crime (mens rea I think they call it in the legal biz).

Perhaps she was poorly advised by the learned Mr Orange.

osarusan

At the end of the hearing John Byrne BL, for the DPP, asked Judge Codd to order the destruction of the mobile phone.

“It’s not possible to delete [whatever data is on it] with any degree of certainty,” he said.

If some unknown person sends you something like that, best thing to do is to destroy the device!! Only way to be sure.

Something seriously wrong with this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

osarusan wrote: »

If some unknown person sends you something like that, best thing to do is to destroy the device!! Only way to be sure.

Something seriously wrong with this.

Yeah, but you shouldn't have to.

Samuel T. Cogley

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I thought the law was "knowingly" in possession of it?

Asked the same question over in Legal Discussions if you're interested.

KiKi III

Sniipe wrote: »

This article https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0204/1113077-omo-delpin-omorouyi-court/

What should be the policy if someone is on the receiving end in a group chat?

• Delete the video on whatsapp.
• Delete it locally.
• Ensure that it is also removed from cloud backup.
• Report/Block user to whataspp (What good is this?).
• Leave group - maybe not.
• Report it to the group admin.
• Report it to Guards.

No point reporting it to the Gardai if you've already deleted it and thus have no evidence.

Samuel T. Cogley

KiKi III wrote: »

No point reporting it to the Gardai if you've already deleted it and thus have no evidence.

This situation would tend to disagree with that. I wonder if they would have prosecuted had she reported it, deleted or not.

Wheety

Even if she deleted the video from the WhatsApp folder, a forensic examination of the phone would still find it. Could you still get in trouble then?

Although I'm not sure that happened. Guard could have just looked through the phone.

Yurt2

You'd have to wonder why the DPP pursued this case.

One hopes that they at least pursued the sender of the material in tandem with this lady.

meeeeh

KiKi III wrote: »

No point reporting it to the Gardai if you've already deleted it and thus have no evidence.

Actually reporting to Garcia is the best option. There was a similar case of one of the top British police officers who list her job and got sentence for not reporting it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/19/police-chief-convicted-for-having-child-sex-abuse-video-on-phone-robyn-williams

Samuel T. Cogley

Yurt! wrote: »

You'd have to wonder why the DPP pursued this case.

One hopes that they at least pursued the sender of the material in tandem with this lady.

Report I read said that he had been convicted in the US.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

Should do, but failure to do so is not a crime:


Actually pretty scary, if her version of events is true, and the article doesn't suggest it was disputed in any way.

Failure to report is not a crime, but possession is, & she had possession of it.

Lads, maybe ye don't realise but when people do things wrong, they make up lies.

Oranage2

bubblypop wrote: »

No it doesn't.
It sounds like the phone was examined by someone trained to do so, who found child porn videos.
Would you suggest the Gardai ignore child porn?

Definitely not ignore, but are Gardai obligated to bring every crime before the courts?

I would have thought she'd be questioned, then given a warning or something.

Can't believe she pleaded guilty when it wasn't her fault the phone downloaded the video.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

bubblypop wrote: »

Failure to report is not a crime, but possession is, & she had possession of it.

Lads, maybe ye don't realise but when people do things wrong, they make up lies.

Myabe you don't realise that sometimes they don't actually do anything wrong in the first place?

neris

osarusan wrote: »

As an aside, what a spectacular, magnificent name on the senior counsel for defence:

Sounds like a guy who lives in a trailer down in rural alabama whos aspirations of the NFL failed miserably

Oranage2

Oranage2 wrote: »

Definitely not ignore, but are Gardai obligated to bring every crime before the courts?

I would have thought she'd be questioned, then given a warning or something.

Can't believe she pleaded guilty when it wasn't her fault the phone downloaded the video.

I'd imagine the was questioned & a file sent to the DPP, the guard didn't decide to charge her.

Fr_Dougal

Sounds like there’s more to this case than we’ve been made aware of.

osarusan

bubblypop wrote: »

Lads, maybe ye don't realise but when people do things wrong, they make up lies.

That is obviously a possibility of course, but neither the RTE or IT articles suggest any part of her story was disputed.



Hopefully there is something else that didn't become public, or it's a pretty scary outcome.

Boggles

Judge Pauline Codd said that in January 2018 Omo Delpin Omorouyi was the innocent recipient of a video which began innocuously

The Judge should have advised her to plead not guilty and throw out the case.

Oranage2

Mr Orange told the court that his client's ambitions to work in child care are now gone, because this conviction means she cannot get garda vetting.

“That door has being shut to her,” he said. She has left a college course in social care and is now working in a fast food restaurant.

He said that she came to Ireland from Nigeria as a juvenile and that “appalling things” had happened to her in her past. In an assessment a psychiatrist said that “listening to her had a moving effect on him”.

Garda Killian Leyden said that the adult in the video has since being identified as a man in Michigan, US, and has been convicted.

Also

Mr Orange said that the case showed that “any of us could find ourselves the recipient of this kind of awful material.”

“This stuff is flying around online. It's a case of there but for the grace of God go I,” he said.

He said that his client should have reported the footage to gardaí but didn't. Judge Codd noted that this is not a criminal offence.

Why doesnt Mr orange know the law? Sounds like the worst lawyer ever

Samuel T. Cogley

Oranage2 wrote: »

Mr Orange told the court that his client's ambitions to work in child care are now gone, because this conviction means she cannot get garda vetting.

“That door has being shut to her,” he said. She has left a college course in social care and is now working in a fast food restaurant.

He said that she came to Ireland from Nigeria as a juvenile and that “appalling things” had happened to her in her past. In an assessment a psychiatrist said that “listening to her had a moving effect on him”.

Garda Killian Leyden said that the adult in the video has since being identified as a man in Michigan, US, and has been convicted.

Also

Mr Orange said that the case showed that “any of us could find ourselves the recipient of this kind of awful material.”

“This stuff is flying around online. It's a case of there but for the grace of God go I,” he said.

He said that his client should have reported the footage to gardaí but didn't. Judge Codd noted that this is not a criminal offence.

Why doesnt Mr orange know the law? Sounds like the worst lawyer ever

Your Username makes this post very confusing.

Fr_Dougal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Sounds like there’s more to this case than we’ve been made aware of.

Where did you get that from?

Oranage2

Oranage2 wrote: »

Mr Orange told the court that his client's ambitions to work in child care are now gone, because this conviction means she cannot get garda vetting.

“That door has being shut to her,” he said. She has left a college course in social care and is now working in a fast food restaurant.

He said that she came to Ireland from Nigeria as a juvenile and that “appalling things” had happened to her in her past. In an assessment a psychiatrist said that “listening to her had a moving effect on him”.

Garda Killian Leyden said that the adult in the video has since being identified as a man in Michigan, US, and has been convicted.

Also

Mr Orange said that the case showed that “any of us could find ourselves the recipient of this kind of awful material.”

“This stuff is flying around online. It's a case of there but for the grace of God go I,” he said.

He said that his client should have reported the footage to gardaí but didn't. Judge Codd noted that this is not a criminal offence.

Why doesnt Mr orange know the law? Sounds like the worst lawyer ever

Psychiatrists aren't cheap.

This case really is bizarre. Pshychological assessment, and in the end she gets a suspended sentence.

As Dougal said, there is something else at play here.

suicide_circus

whatever about working in childcare, i dont fancy her chances of getting any job in ireland

"any previous convictions?"

"yes"

"what for?"

"possession of child pornography"

"NEXT!!"

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

whatever about working in childcare, i dont fancy her chances of getting any job in ireland

"any previous convictions?"

"yes"

"what for?"

"possession of child pornography"

"NEXT!!"

“Any previous convictions?”

“No”.

Fr_Dougal

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Where did you get that from?

Her house was raided in an unrelated investigation. She was texting some randomer who send her abuse images.

It’s all very strange...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually reporting to Garcia is the best option. There was a similar case of one of the top British police officers who list her job and got sentence for not reporting it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/19/police-chief-convicted-for-having-child-sex-abuse-video-on-phone-robyn-williams

Yeah, Detective Garcia IS the best in the biz.

Tired Gardener

Read the article on the journal, and I am firmly in the 'there is more to this story' camp.

If what we are reading is the full story. It seems overly harsh, she thought it was deleted, so that may be why she didn't see value in going to the Gardaí.

Also, what happened to the sender of the video?

A very worrying turn of events.

Tired Gardener

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Read the article on the journal, and I am firmly in the 'there is more to this story' camp.

If what we are reading is the full story. It seems overly harsh, she thought it was deleted, so that may be why she didn't see value in going to the Gardaí.

Also, what happened to the sender of the video?

A very worrying turn of events.

He’s being charged in the US.

Quantum Erasure

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Report I read said that he had been convicted in the US.

That was the guy in the video, not whoever had sent it to her. These videos seem to be doing the rounds in certain communities

Harry Palmr

Do many people idly click files sent to them by persons who are not known directly?

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

That was the guy in the video, not whoever had sent it to her. These videos seem to be doing the rounds in certain communities

I’d hope nobody I know would forward on anything like it but I’d have no qualms about shopping them if they did.

ReginaldSmythV

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

He’s being charged in the US.

The abuser in the video is being charged but it doesn't say if he is the sender of the video.

Discodog

A client of mine is a computer expert. He swears that he could put images or video onto someone's computer without them having a clue.

Dravokivich

bubblypop wrote: »

Surely if you received it you would straight away report it to the Gardai, it & the person that sent it to you?

First thing to do is to always report it. Otherwise upon investigation, youd be considered complicit.

Dravokivich

Discodog wrote: »

A client of mine is a computer expert. He swears that he could put images or video onto someone's computer without them having a clue.

Malware can compromise in more ways than collecting data or encrypting the hard drives.

riffmongous

Dravokivich wrote: »

First thing to do is to always report it. Otherwise upon investigation, youd be considered complicit.

Without deleting it?

Discodog

Dravokivich wrote: »

Malware can compromise in more ways than collecting data or encrypting the hard drives.

I am pretty sure that Ransomware was used with the threat that illegal images had or would be put on the victims computer. Losing data is one thing but a prison term for illegal images is far more damaging.

Discodog

Dravokivich wrote: »

First thing to do is to always report it. Otherwise upon investigation, youd be considered complicit.

Probably wise to send a copy to CEOP so you aren't reliant on Garda admin.

sabat

This is about the 3rd or 4th case before the courts that I can remember of Nigerians casually sending each other child abuse imagery in a normal (ie not in a typical paedophile group) setting. You'd almost think they had a different sense of right and wrong to us...

Cilldara_2000

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I wish people would stop referring to it as child "porn". That is likening it to consensual acts. Its child abuse images and videos.

Agreed. But regrettably the term child pornography is used in the law. (EG see Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998)