The DPP is alleging that images found on Judge Brian Curtin's computer are those of children engaged in explicit sexual activity or depict the genital or anal region of a child, counsel for the DPP told the jury in Tralee Circuit Court yesterday.
Ms Mary Ellen Ring SC was opening the case for the prosecution against Judge Curtin, who is charged with possession of child pornography on May 27th, 2002, and was outlining to the jury what the prosecution had to prove.
She stressed that it was only an allegation.
"The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right. An allegation has been preferred against him. That's all it is at this stage. The job of the prosecution is to prove to each and every one of you that he is guilty. You then remove the presumption."
There was one count against the accused, that on May 27th 2002 he had knowingly in his possession child pornography contrary to the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act of 1998, she said.
In that Act a child is defined as a person under 17.
Child pornography is defined in the Act as any visual representation that shows a child, or a person depicted as a child, engaged in explicit sexual activity, any visual representation of a child witnessing an explicit sexual act, or any depiction of the genital or anal region of a child.
The alleged images in this case are visual representations of a child engaged in explicit sexual activity, or the depiction of the genital or anal region of a child, she said.
"You must be satisfied that what is produced is child pornography, that it depicts a child under the age of 17, and the evidence convinces you that the accused was in possession of child pornography." She said that the jury would hear from a number of witnesses. They would hear that on May 20th, 2002, Det Insp Thomas Dixon obtained a warrant to search 24 Árd na Lí, Tralee.
On May 27th a number of gardaí went to the address and conducted a search. Mr Curtin was not present.
"A number of items were taken from the premises, in particular a desktop computer and various components. They were examined by gardaí.
The prosecution case is that a number of images were located on the computer and the prosecution says these images come within the meaning of the 1998 Act. A file was sent to the DPP.
"There is an obligation on the prosecution to prove that child pornography was knowingly in the possession of the accused." In defining possession, the words "ownership" and "control" came to mind, she said. "You can possess things and not have them about your person."
While previously child pornography took the form of books and films, there was now new technology.
"This case brings in the technology of the Internet."
She said she would be assuming that the jury had little or no knowledge of the Internet, though there may be people who did have such knowledge.
The jury was then sent out for legal argument in its absence, which continued for the rest of the day.
The case resumes today.