Child Abuse -- The Baby Swinging Video Charges Dropped...

Finally, common sense has prevailed in this case and the charges have been dropped. This case was a loser from the outset and should never have been brought by the police. It was a case of over-zealousness on the part of the police or maybe even a not so subtle attempt to try and judicially broaden the scope of the relevant legislation. In any event, it failed and rightly so.

I have written about this case on three separate occasions and you can find those posts here.

The Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) has dropped the charges. The realization that if this went to a jury trial that they would be very unlikely to succeed in convincing a jury of Christopher Illingworth's peers that he was guilty of distributing child abuse material has prevailed.

The video was posted on Liveleak and showed a man swinging a baby. The man and the baby remain pretty much unknown. However, the video is purportedly of either a Russian or Ukrainian circus family doing a little bit of training. At the end of the video the baby is smiling and laughing.

What was even more bizarre was that the Australian Film Classification Board classified this as MA15+ which would suggest that they were not convinced that the material was of a standard that would see it become a criminal offense under the provisions for child abuse material. Ultimately, the classification sealed the deal for Illingworth. There was simply no way that a jury would have been convinced that he had broken the law.

This ends the criminal saga however it is unclear whether Illingworth has any recourse for the trauma he has suffered as a result of his home being raided by the police, his arrest, and subsequent committal for trial.

Baby Swinging Video -- Update

I have written about this particular case a couple of times before, here and here. The case of Chris Illingworth and the baby swinging video posted on Liveleak after watching it and downloading it from YouTube. This is an interesting case as it has the potential to set a precedent as to what constitutes child abuse material under Australian law.

The case, which was subject to a recent committal hearing in the Maroochydoore's Magistrates Court in Queensland, has now been ordered to go to trial. A date for that trial has yet to be set.

There are a number of concerns in this case. First, is that there is no evidence to suggest that the child in the video clip that was posted, was in fact harmed. There is evidence of a speculative nature that the child may have been hurt. This evidence is speculative because the person giving it has not physically examined the child in question. She, Dr. Susan Cadzow, is basing that testimony on nothing more than having watched the video with respect to this case.

Second, whether the intent of the parliament when they passed this particular law was for this purpose. There is no doubt that the legislation is designed to protect children from violence and harm. There is no direct evidence that this child has been harmed. Furthermore, it is thought that the man and the child in the video are part of a circus troupe, and possibly operating somewhere in Eastern Europe. Police have yet to locate either the man or the child.

It seems that when this finally does go to trial that Illingworth and his lawyers are going to argue that this is not child abuse. At best this is a training video for circus performers. A novel argument and one that seemingly has some legs.

The moral of this story is that Australians need to be careful what they watch, let alone what they post, while online. The cold hared reality is that if the police continue to interpret the law in the manner this case suggest that they are, then even watching this type of video online means that the viewer is liable for a term of imprisonment of ten years.

I guess I am not going to be talking about whether I have watched this particular video anytime soon.