Trucker cleared over indecent images rap
A trucker has been cleared of any wrongdoing after indecent images of children were found on his phone.
Paul Brown, 48, was arrested after photographs were discovered on a mobile in the cab of his lorry.
He was found not guilty after insisting he had no idea they were on the handset.
The driver stood trial at Paisley Sheriff Court.
Brown said: “When the police turned up, how do you think I would feel?
“I was dismayed – shocked. “I showed them around the truck and helped out as much as I could. “I have nothing to hide at all.” Brown’s cab was raided after cops swooped on the MP Burke Transport depot.
They seized a Samsung mobile phone and several memory cards from the yard in Paisley’s Abercorn Street.
Cybercrime cops searched the handset – uncovering two pictures of girls as young as eight.
Five deleted files were found on the SD cards.
Their titles included the terms “12yo”, “paedo” and “raped”.
Brown told the court he regularly picked up memory cards from “street markets” and “car boot sales”.
He says he did not know the files were on the devices.
The driver revealed the phone was bought brand new just weeks before.
He was adamant nobody else had used it.
Detective Constable Lance Wilkinson earlier told how he examined the pictures.
He said: “Within an application stored on the phone called Google photos, I recovered images which I would deem images of child sexual exploitation.
“They were indecent images of children.
“The first image features a female child aged eight to ten.
“The second image is of a female child aged eight to ten.
“She was dressed only in her underwear and posing erotically.
“The accused appears to be the user of the recovered application.
“Having completed an examination of the memory card, I found a number of deleted files with terms I would deem indicative of child sexual exploitation material.
“There are terms within the file names I have seen in my work.”
The devices were sent for analysis after the stop on September 26, 2017.
DC Wilkinson labelled the photographs as category C – depicting pre-pubescent girls.
He says he also recovered five deleted files on a memory card.
He says they may have been videos.
The cop told the court they could not be fully recovered.
But he says their titles features terms including “Lolita” and “underage”.
DC Wilkinson added: “The file names I have found on the memory card, for me, having experience in these cases, are very indicative of that type of content.
“They are deleted files, but, for me, these were found on a separate device.
“To me, there appears to be some link between the terminology and the images found on the other device.
“That is images of child sexual exploitation.
“These files could not be played. “They were deleted and were not able to be recovered.”
The driver told the court he had picked up the memory card to boost capacity in his sat nav.
He added: “I’ve been looking for SanDisks all over the place.
“If I saw them at street markets or car boot sales, I would just pick them up.
“I do recollect, I think I got them from a car boot sale in Dumbarton.
“It was for my sat nav because I have a sat nav which is screaming for new memory.”
Brown, of Glasgow, instructed experts at analytical firm Strathclyde Forensics to prove he did not access the indecent images.
He claimed there was no proof he had accessed the files or ever seen them.
The Crown was unable to prove he had ever looked at the photographs.
Prosecutor Pamela Brady asked if it was a “coincidence” the pictures on the phone were found alongside the deleted files. Brown replied: “I don’t know anything about them.”
Sheriff Colin Pettigrew expressed concern about the “content and quality” of the prosecution and defence cases.
He added: “The Crown report could certainly have been more thorough.
“The Crown expert says he does not know from his examination whether you had seen the images.
“This is someone who has done hundreds, if not thousands, of these examinations.
“The onus is on you, on the balance of probability, to prove you had not seen the photographs.
“I am not fully convinced on all you have said.
“But I need not be fully convinced.
“I find some of what you had to say unreliable.
“Nevertheless, I am satisfied the defence has been met out.
“The only appropriate find can be one of not guilty.”