Darlington businessman George Steen to appeal conviction over child abuse 'spanking' images

The Northern Echo: George Steen George Steen

A disgraced businessman who claims he was wrongly convicted of downloading child abuse images - involving photos and video clips of boys and girls being spanked - has launched a bid to clear his name.

George Steen, 65, from Darlington accepted having downloaded "sexy images" - including pictures of women being spanked, Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC told London's Appeal Court.

But Steen insisted the "models" depicted in the several thousands of images found on his computers were all over 18 and legal and that he never knowingly downloaded child abuse images.

Steen, of Greenbank Road, received a two-year community sentence at Teesside Crown Court last January after he was convicted of nine charges of making indecent images of children, two of possessing them and one of evading importation duty.

He was detained by customs officers at Heathrow in July 2010 after returning from Bangkok, said Judge Hilliard, and his laptop computer was examined at length.

"There were still images and film which the prosecution said were indecent images of children being spanked, or showing the effects of having been spanked," he added.

It was Steen's case that he "had no interest in children", and although he had browsed "spanking websites", the models concerned were all adults.

His case reached the Appeal Court as he challenged his convictions, with claims that compelling evidence proves that none of the individuals in the seized photos were children.

He also argued that the trial judge wrongly directed the jury on a key issue in the case.

Judge Hilliard, sitting with Lord Justice Davis and Mr Justice Supperstone, granted him permission to appeal.

He concluded: "We think it is arguable that the trial judge may not have properly directed the jury as to the mental element necessary for the prosecution to prove its case".

Steen's full appeal will be heard at an unspecified future date.

In 2003, Steen was arrested by detectives from the Serious Fraud Office who were investigating a worldwide scam which swindled £1.5 million out of wealthy victims.

He fled to the Philippines midway through his trial at Southwark Crown Court but was convicted in his absence and later deported and jailed for six years.
 

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:15am Wed 5 Mar 14

ch1958 says...

can't understand this - why drag it all back up again and put himself back in the limelight

also - should comments be allowed on a legal matter like this
can't understand this - why drag it all back up again and put himself back in the limelight also - should comments be allowed on a legal matter like this ch1958
  • Score: 6

11:46am Wed 5 Mar 14

oneguyh says...

A 65 yr old man, returning from Bangkok, fled to the Philippines, come on Steeno, you couldn't be any more dodgy unless your house was made of sweets.

Send him down m'lord.
A 65 yr old man, returning from Bangkok, fled to the Philippines, come on Steeno, you couldn't be any more dodgy unless your house was made of sweets. Send him down m'lord. oneguyh
  • Score: 9

12:17pm Wed 5 Mar 14

greenfinger says...

ch1958 wrote:
can't understand this - why drag it all back up again and put himself back in the limelight

also - should comments be allowed on a legal matter like this
in a word... compensation
[quote][p][bold]ch1958[/bold] wrote: can't understand this - why drag it all back up again and put himself back in the limelight also - should comments be allowed on a legal matter like this[/p][/quote]in a word... compensation greenfinger
  • Score: 5

10:59pm Wed 5 Mar 14

calumannabel says...

greenfinger wrote:
ch1958 wrote:
can't understand this - why drag it all back up again and put himself back in the limelight

also - should comments be allowed on a legal matter like this
in a word... compensation
How the hell would he qualify for compensation. He has no fine reputation to lose as he's previously been in prison and served no time to be compensated for. Maybe he just feels the prosecution got it wrong!
I think he's been stupid digging it all up again as the law closes rank when it comes to appeals.
[quote][p][bold]greenfinger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ch1958[/bold] wrote: can't understand this - why drag it all back up again and put himself back in the limelight also - should comments be allowed on a legal matter like this[/p][/quote]in a word... compensation[/p][/quote]How the hell would he qualify for compensation. He has no fine reputation to lose as he's previously been in prison and served no time to be compensated for. Maybe he just feels the prosecution got it wrong! I think he's been stupid digging it all up again as the law closes rank when it comes to appeals. calumannabel
  • Score: 0

7:01am Thu 6 Mar 14

Davy Crocket says...

Dirty dirty Derty derrrrty dog ... Buy a poop scoop.
Dirty dirty Derty derrrrty dog ... Buy a poop scoop. Davy Crocket
  • Score: 2

2:23pm Thu 6 Mar 14

greenfinger says...

calumannabel wrote:
greenfinger wrote:
ch1958 wrote:
can't understand this - why drag it all back up again and put himself back in the limelight

also - should comments be allowed on a legal matter like this
in a word... compensation
How the hell would he qualify for compensation. He has no fine reputation to lose as he's previously been in prison and served no time to be compensated for. Maybe he just feels the prosecution got it wrong!
I think he's been stupid digging it all up again as the law closes rank when it comes to appeals.
He wouldn't be claiming for his reputation, his previous prison sentence has no bearing on this case and the judge has made an error (unfortunately for us) but we all make mistakes. Then he'd have a strong case, sickening
[quote][p][bold]calumannabel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenfinger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ch1958[/bold] wrote: can't understand this - why drag it all back up again and put himself back in the limelight also - should comments be allowed on a legal matter like this[/p][/quote]in a word... compensation[/p][/quote]How the hell would he qualify for compensation. He has no fine reputation to lose as he's previously been in prison and served no time to be compensated for. Maybe he just feels the prosecution got it wrong! I think he's been stupid digging it all up again as the law closes rank when it comes to appeals.[/p][/quote]He wouldn't be claiming for his reputation, his previous prison sentence has no bearing on this case and the judge has made an error (unfortunately for us) but we all make mistakes. Then he'd have a strong case, sickening greenfinger
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree