Significant parts of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 took effect during the spring of this year. On 1 February section 59 was brought into force amending the Suicide Act 1961. For the old offence under section 2, there is now substituted a provision that ‘a person (D) commits an offence if (a) D does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person and (b) D’s act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide’.

There is no requirement that the person being encouraged need be a specific person or class of persons known to or identified by D. The change is a modernisation of the law to remove references to this being an offence of aiding and abetting and rather to reflect the language of part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.

Prosecutions under this section will be considered in accordance with the DPP’s new guidance on assisted suicide and, in any case, there must be a clear intention to encourage or assist such an act. However, websites which offer general advice on ways to commit ­suicide will be caught by the new law.

On 6 April, a new offence was ­created in relation to the possession of prohibited images of children. There are now four separate offences ­involving pornographic material.

Under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to take or make, distribute or show any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, an offence carrying 10 years. Under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it became an offence to have any indecent photograph of a child in the defendant’s possession, an offence carrying five years.

However, both those offences were limited to photographs or pseudo-­photographs. There are a number of ‘images’, including computer graphics and drawings, which are pornographic and are now criminalised. The provisions of sections 63-69 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 criminalised possession of extreme pornographic images and now section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 makes it an offence to possess prohibited images of a child under 18.

There are three attributes to the offence which must all be met:i. The image must be pornographic – that is, of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal;ii. The image must focus solely or ­principally on a child’s genital or anal region or portray a series of acts involving, or in the presence of, a child; andiii. The image must be grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

As with the 2008 act, there is a defence for ‘classified’ works, and also if the defence can prove that the defendant:(a) had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image; or(b) had not seen the image and did not know or had any cause to suspect it was a prohibited image; or(c) was sent the image ­concerned without any prior request and did not keep it for an unreasonable time.

The first defence is important for solicitors while any copy of the evidence is held in their offices. This offence, like that under the 2008 act, carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.

On 6 April a new offence was created of holding another person in slavery or servitude or requiring another ­person to perform forced or compulsory labour, carrying a maximum of 14 years. There are defences in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The act also makes significant changes in criminal investigations, ­evidence and procedure. On 1 January 2010 provisions were introduced to replace the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008, which had been a time-limited statute. These provisions allow for the anonymity of witnesses in defined circumstances. The law has been fully considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Mayers 2008 EWCA Crim 2989, where it is described as a special measure of last resort.

The new provisions will continue any order in force at 1 January and follow very closely the temporary provisions, but make clear that undercover ­investigators may take advantage of these provisions, and that the orders may be discharged and varied.

The act continues to provide a non-exclusive list of considerations for the court to have in mind in deciding whether an anonymity order is appropriate.

On 1 February the magistrates’ (including the youth) court lost any power to grant bail in relation to ­allegations of murder. This restriction does not apply to allegations of attempted murder. For both adults and youths, a bail hearing must be listed in the crown court within 48 hours, excluding public holidays, so that bail may be considered.

Other changes were made on the same date to the Bail Act 1976:(a) A defendant charged with murder may not be granted bail unless the Crown Court is of the opinion that there is no significant risk of him ­committing an offence that would or would be likely to cause physical or mental injury to another;(b) In taking decisions generally whether it is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant would commit an offence while on bail, every court shall have regard to the risk that he may do so by engaging in conduct that would or would be likely to cause physical or mental injury other than to himself.

On the 6 April the act introduced a new concept: the Investigation Anonymity Order. This is intended to encourage witnesses to give evidence in gang-related crime. However, the act lays down extremely restrictive conditions. There must first be an investigation into a qualifying offence which is an offence of murder or manslaughter where death is caused either by the victim being shot with a firearm or being injured with a knife. In addition, the person likely to have committed the offence must be aged at least 11 but under 30, and be likely to have been a member of a group which it is possible to identify from the criminal activity that its members appear to engage in, and it appears that most persons in the group are aged at least 11 but under 30.

Evidence On 6 April amendments were made to section 120 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for the admissibility of prior consistent statements by a witness. The common law has ­provided a number of circumstances in which this evidence is admissible and the 2003 act made it admissible not only as to credibility but also as to the truth of its content.

The common law had allowed prior consistent statements to be proved where they represented a recent ­complaint of sexual misconduct. The 2010 act removes any requirement for that complaint to be recent. However, an important protection contained in section 120(7) is maintained: a prior consistent statement cannot be used until the maker of that statement has given evidence. Admissibility will then be subject to the general powers to exclude hearsay evidence under section 78 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and ­section 126 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.