Nude pictures of children are usually "allowed" if they are for "artistic purposes" and dont depict them in a sexual way. I think the way they do it is grade th

Nude pictures of children are usually "allowed" if they are for "artistic purposes" and dont depict them in a sexual way. I think the way they do it is grade them Level 1 but dont prosecute for it if there is no sexual context. (this is.. shaky... Im unsure of the law because I have only seen foreign cases/examples in this area) So this case is strange; it's not something I would have expected to see go to trial. The only thing I can think of is that there doesn't appear to have been any need to photograph them actually topless/nude in order to create the photo's - and so they might be judge gratuitous. 150hrs community service is light for a child sex offence - it's just above an official slap on the wrist I would say. So it could be the judge wanted to impress on the guy to be careful in future (or something). Ultimately the CPS were at fault there, IMO, in taking it to court.