Young Little Sex Doll Doll

⚡ ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻

Young Little Sex Doll Doll
Set font size to 100% Set font size to 125% Set font size to 150%
Switch to colour theme Switch to blue theme Switch to high visibility theme Switch to soft theme

Updated: 31 May 2022 | Legal Guidance
RT @CPSEastEngland: Today at #Chelmsford Crown Court Jack Sepple pleaded guilty to the murder of Canadian tourist Ashley Wadsworth. Senten…
RT @CPS_NorthWest: ⚖️Burglar jailed for 7yrs & 11mths for running over homeowner with her own car in Horwich in February.

Ben Collinson Di…
RT @CPS_Mersey: Michael Moon, 39, from Widnes, has been jailed for 22 years for trying to kill the mother of his ex-girlfriend. Moon stabbe…
RT @CPSCareers: ⚖️ The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are looking for casework assistants and administrative officers to join their divers…
RT @CPS_NorthWest: ⚖️Homeless man, 53, pleads guilty to attacking female dogwalkers in East Lancashire in November last year.

Jim Mowbray…
This Legal Guidance is intended to assist when prosecutors are asked to advise on allegations that an offence has been committed involving a doll with childlike characteristics which is capable of being used for sexual purposes.
It relates to possible offences of importing a childlike sex doll, distributing or selling it (or having it with intent to do so), or sending it by post. There is no offence of simple possession of a childlike sex doll.
There are three offences which may be committed:
Section 42 of the CCA 1876, and the Table to which it refers, provides that:
“The goods enumerated and described in the following table of prohibitions and restrictions inwards are hereby prohibited to be imported or brought into the United Kingdom,
A TABLE OF PROHIBITION AND RESTRICTIONS INWARDS
… Indecent or obscene prints, paintings, photographs, books, cards, lithographic or other engravings, or any other indecent or obscene articles.”
“(1) Without prejudice to any other provision of the Customs and Excise Acts 1979, if any person—
(a) knowingly acquires possession of any of the following goods, that is to say—
i. goods which have been unlawfully removed from a warehouse or Queen's warehouse;
ii. goods which are chargeable with a duty which has not been paid;
iii. goods with respect to the importation or exportation of which any prohibition or restriction is for the time being in force under or by virtue of any enactment; or
(b) is in any way knowingly concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or concealing or in any manner dealing with any such goods, and does so with intent to defraud Her Majesty of any duty payable on the goods or to evade any such prohibition or restriction with respect to the goods he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and may be arrested.”
This offence is triable summarily or on indictment. The maximum sentence is seven years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Goods may be forfeited pursuant to section 49 CEMA 1979.
Other offences under CEMA 1979 may be available, including those contrary to section 50(3) and 170(2) (noting the breadth of conduct caught by the latter offence). It is anticipated, however, that most allegations will concern a person knowingly acquiring possession of prohibited/restricted items.
As set out below, the sale of child-like sex dolls is caught by the OPA 1959, but on the basis that those dolls are obscene within the meaning of OPA 1959 (have a tendency to deprave or corrupt). Accordingly, the OPA 1959 definition of obscene should be adopted when considering the CEMA 1979 offence for importation. Prosecutors are reminded not to use the ordinary meaning of the term ‘obscene’ nor the term ‘indecent’ which is not contained within the OPA 1959 definition.
Two elements of the offence contrary to section 42 CCA 1876 and section 170(1) CEMA 1979 fall to be considered: “obscene”, and “knowing acquisition”.
When assessing obscenity, prosecutors should consider:
When assessing whether or not the doll has been created for sexual use, consideration should be given to any evidence concerning the purpose for which it is marketed; any features which are consistent with use for sexual gratification; any accompanying paraphernalia indicating that sexual activity is to take place.
When assessing whether or not the doll has childlike features, prosecutors should consider whether the nature and quality of the childlike features mean – whatever other characteristics are also present – the doll unquestionably embodies childlike features.
This involves an exercise in judgement about what a jury is likely to conclude about the appearance of the doll. Expert evidence as to age or appearance, or obscenity, is not admissible and should not be sought. This is consistent with the position in respect of indecent images of children, where the age of a child is a finding of fact for the jury to determine and expert evidence is inadmissible: R v Land [1998] 1 Cr. App. R. 301; and the position concerning expert evidence of obscenity confirmed in R v Calder and Boyars Ltd [1969] 1 Q.B. 151. Nor is it permissible to use other evidence, such as other material suggesting a sexual interest in children (for instance, indecent images of children), when assessing whether the doll is, objectively and of itself, obscene. Neither the motive of the person acquiring possession/importing, nor the existence of material external to the doll, is relevant or admissible on this question, by analogy to R v Graham-Kerr [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1098, 88 Cr. App. R. 302 and R v Smethurst [2002] Cr. App. R. 6.
The evidence as to whether child-like sex dolls in fact encourage or discourage a person from progressing to offending against children is inconclusive (and expert evidence inadmissible on this point) and so prosecutors cannot therefore rely on an assumption that either will follow when assessing obscenity (as defined by the OPA 1959). Prosecutors should consider instead the use and appearance of the doll.
The prosecution must also prove that the defendant knew that the goods which had been imported, and which they acquired possession of, were goods subject to a prohibition or a restriction. The prosecution is not required to further prove that a defendant knew the precise category of goods the importation of which had been prohibited: R v Hussain [1969] 2 Q.B. 567, 53 Cr. App. R. 448. Knowledge, however, must be proved. As possession of a childlike sex doll is not unlawful per se in England and Wales, prosecutors should start from the position that, without more, a suspect may not know its importation is unlawful. Prosecutors will need to consider this element of the offence carefully. They may in particular focus upon:
The second offence available concerns a person who, whether for gain or not, publishes an obscene article, or a person who has an obscene article for publication for gain (whether gain to themself or gain to another). Such a person commits an offence contrary to section 2(1) OPA 1959. “Obscene", “article” and “publishes” are defined in section 1 of the Act. See also the Obscene Publications legal guidance.
This offence is triable summarily or on indictment. The maximum sentence is five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
This legislation seeks to criminalise those who make material, which has a tendency to deprave or corrupt its audience, available to others.
A childlike sex doll is capable of being an article embodying matter to be looked at, and thus an article within the meaning of the Act. In Conegate Ltd. v H.M. Customs and Excise [1987] 2 W.L.R. 39 a concession was made that adult sex dolls were not obscene articles. This concession does not prevent prosecutors from contending that childlike sex dolls are obscene articles.
A person who distributes or sells a childlike sex doll, or has it for distributing or selling for gain, is capable of publishing it within the meaning of the Act. While section 1(3)(b) provides an alternative way in which an article embodying matter to be looked at may be published, it is upon the alternative provision in section 1(3)(a) that a person may be said (using the wide terms of the OPA 1959) to have published an article. Publication need only be to one person and may include paedophilic fantasy: R v Gavin Smith [2012] EWCA Crim 398. 
As with “article” and “publish”, prosecutors must apply the definition provided for by the legislation when assessing the question of “obscene”. This is distinct from other legislation, including the CCA 1876, which does not define this word and whose ordinary meaning applies. 
In this context, prosecutors must consider the evidence that the likely recipient of the childlike sex doll may be depraved or corrupted. Regard may be had at this stage to the other evidence in the case, whether the doll was to be used to satisfy a sexual interest in children and the likelihood that it would be limited to the doll or to child sexual offences. A defence based on an argument that the likely audience is already depraved or corrupt is unlikely to succeed. The Act is not merely concerned with the once and for all corruption of the wholly innocent; it equally seeks to protect the less innocent from further corruption, the addict from feeding or increasing his addiction: DPP v Whyte [1972] 3 All ER 12. Prosecutors should note, and go on to consider if appropriate, the statutory defence provided for by section 2(5) OPA 1959:
“A person shall not be convicted of an offence against this section if he proves that he had not examined the article in respect of which he is charged and had no reasonable cause to suspect that it was such that his publication of it would make him liable to be convicted of an offence against this section.”
The third offence concerns a similar assessment of indecency and obscenity involving articles sent by post. The ordinary meaning of “indecent” – whether for this offence or the CCA 1876 provision – is “shocking, disgusting and revolting” (the formulation of Lord Reid in Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd. and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions [1972] 3 W.L.R. 143).
It is triable summarily or on indictment. The maximum sentence is twelve months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
This offence can only be committed by the person sending the item, and not by the recipient, even if they have ordered the object and therefore caused it to be sent.
In addition to considering the public interest factors tending in favour of, and against, a prosecution in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, prosecutors will also have regard to the seriousness of the offending.
The seriousness of these offences is the potential link to sexual offending against children. However, as set out above, it cannot be assumed that this will follow nor is there conclusive evidence that this is the case. Further, as the court in R v Dobson [2017] EWCA Crim 2435 observed: whilst there is a clear public policy in deterring those who sustain the market in [indecent images of children] ….the position may be different for people whose activities are restricted to using dolls... for their own private sexual pleasure”. Notwithstanding that prosecutors are entitled to reach a conclusion that childlike sex dolls may have a tendency to deprave or corrupt, on the particular facts of the case they are dealing with, they should not base their decisions at either the evidential or the public interest stage on a general and more serious ground that possession of a doll will lead to more serious offending. 
Where there is other evidence that the suspect was furthering a sexual interest in children, such as relevant communications or indecent images of children, that will be a further factor tending in favour of a prosecution. The absence of any other evidence or offending demonstrating a sexual interest in children and/or that the doll was not likely to come into contact with any other person will be a factor or factors tending against a prosecution. The age of the doll may also be relevant: the younger its apparent age, the greater the public interest in prosecuting.
The Code for Crown Prosecutors is a public document, issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out the general principles Crown Prosecutors should follow when they make decisions on cases.
This guidance assists our prosecutors when they are making decisions about cases. It is regularly updated to reflect changes in law and practice.
The Crown Prosecution Service
102 Petty France,
London, SW1H 9EA


GOV.UK is the place to find
government's services and
information online.

Help us to improve our website; let us know
what you think by taking our short survey

More stories to check out before you go
Life-like child sex dolls are being sold through Amazon and eBay to British paedophiles who use them as a ‘companion’ to satisfy their sick desires.
The dolls, worth between £800 to over £1,000, feature the body of a young child between six and ten-years-old and sneak past border force officers because they are labelled as ‘manikins or ‘models’.
Hundreds are feared to have made it into Britain and in many cases paedophiles buy children’s clothing including school uniforms in preparation for their arrival.
The dolls, which are made in the far east, come pre-packaged with pink blankets, a child’s comb and a USB stick which warms the sex toy up and can even makes it vibrate.
Since March 2016 Border Force have seized 123 silicone dolls from 120 couriers and of seven people charged with importing a doll, six were also found to have indecent images of children.
Hazel Stewart, operations manager for the National Crime Agency and the Child Protection and Online Protection Centre, said: “We had an expert assess these items and they were found to be child and child like.
“They were going to individuals who in many cases were committing other offences and otherwise unknown to UK law enforcement.
“The dolls come in many shapes and sizes, they are a relatively new phenomenon to us and are very accurate anatomically.
“They have doey eyes and come with large breasts and different breast sizes, we have also had male dolls with a six pack.
“They come packaged identified as clothing manikins, they have an anus, vagina and a working mouth.
“They have a texture to make it more real and come with a pretty pink blanket and negligee like g-strings and some people have requested school uniforms.
“Some come with a child’s comb, a USB stick that warms it up and some come with a stick that makes the doll vibrate.
“They also have a douche so the doll can be cleaned out afterwards.
“The cost is quite a significant investment.
“These individuals who have had these articles, child sex dolls, have a sexual interest in children, these items are indicative of that interest.
“They are very heavy and life-like and are sold on Amazon and eBay.
“Usually there is a warning on them to say there is an issue getting them into the UK.
“They are sold by importers in the Far East, but as far as I am aware they are not for sale in the UK.
“They are not advertised as child sex dolls, but as adult models.
“When we approached people, the couriers and exporters they are very understanding of our plight.
“They are obscene because they depict a child, they have everything the importer would want to have sex with.”
Former primary School governor David Turner, 72, admitting owning one doll which he had had sex with after police intercepted his second doll at border control.
When he was arrested he handed over 17 pen drives crammed with 33,619 indecent category C images of children aged three to 16.
In police custody Turner admitted buying clothing for his doll and claimed he had bought it as a “companion” to join him and his wife.
As school governor his favourite activity as a school governor was to sit in the library and listen to the children read.
But Turner’s defence team has asked the judge at Canterbury Crown Court for a ‘trial of issue’ so a judge can decide if the dolls are indecent or obscene.
The trial-of-issue is expected to be the first legal ruling on the child sex doll.
If the judge rules that the dolls are not obscene, it could see two offenders convicted of importing the dolls appeal their sentence.
Offenders who import the dolls can be given up to seven years imprisonment and a £20,000 fine if convicted of importing an indecent or obscene article under the Customs and Excise Management Act.
But there is currently no legislation banning the manufacturing of child sex dolls in Britain.
In June Andrew Dobson, 49, of Crewe, Cheshire, was jailed for two years and eight months on 23 June after he admitted importing a doll as well as possessing indecent images of children.
Dobson, of Crewe, Cheshire, bought six-year-old girl’s underwear in preparation of the doll’s arrival and during sentencing the judge said the “doll was meant for your perverted sexual desires towards children”.
Others to be convicted include Brain Hopkins, 40, from Plymouth and Andrew Larkins, of Norwich, Norfolk, who did not attend his sentencing.
Last month (July) Dean Hall, 42, avoided jail despite admitted importing a doll as well as possessing indecent images of children and was given a two year suspended sentence.
Ms Stewart added: “David Turner bought them as companions for him and his wife and he had another in his house which he has admitted having sex with.
“Excuses have included ‘it’s portable’, ‘it’s a joke’ and ‘it can be hidden easily’.
“They are for people’s gratification, they are made to look like a child you can have sex with.”
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/must-reads/two-mums-sexually-abused-children-man-join-forces-thirty-years-later-ensure-stays-sex-offenders-register/26/02/
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-original-whistleblowers-say-abusers-still-large/03/07/
TheLondonEconomic.com – Open, accessible and accountable news, sport, culture and lifestyle.

Read more
© 2019 thelondoneconomic.com - TLE, International House, 24 Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2BN. All Rights Reserved.
© 2019 thelondoneconomic.com - TLE, International House, 24 Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2BN. All Rights Reserved.

More stories to check out before you go
Life-like child sex dolls are being sold through Amazon and eBay to British paedophiles who use them as a ‘companion’ to satisfy their sick desires.
The dolls, worth between £800 to over £1,000, feature the body of a young child between six and ten-years-old and sneak past border force officers because they are labelled as ‘manikins or ‘models’.
Hundreds are feared to have made it into Britain and in many cases paedophiles buy children’s clothing including school uniforms in preparation for their arrival.
The dolls, which are made in the far east, come pre-packaged with pink blankets, a child’s comb and a USB stick which warms the sex toy up and can even makes it vibrate.
Since March 2016 Border Force have seized 123 silicone dolls from 120 couriers and of seven people charged with importing a doll, six were also found to have indecent images of children.
Hazel Stewart, operations manager for the National Crime Agency and the Child Protection and Online Protection Centre, said: “We had an expert assess these items and they were found to be child and child like.
“They were going to individuals who in many cases were committing other offences and otherwise unknown to UK law enforcement.
“The dolls come in many shapes and sizes, they are a relatively new phenomenon to us and are very accurate anatomically.
“They have doey eyes and come with large breasts and different breast sizes, we have also had male dolls with a six pack.
“They come packaged
Griffith Double Penetration
Porn Com Usa
Young School Teens