BY AUSTIN LYNCH

A Church of Ireland clergyman from Lisnaskea has appeared before Fermanagh Magistrates Court charged with possession of photographs and DVDs featuring indecent images of young boys.

The Reverend Stephen Alfred Crowther (47), with an address at Castlebalfour Road in Lisnaskea, is pleading not guilty to a total of 10 charges before the court.

After hearing the evidence in the case Resident Magistrate Mr Copeland said he wanted to consider the case and said he would deliver his verdict on Friday morning.

The defendant is charged with one count of downloading four indecent photographs of children on 6th December 2005. He also faces eight charges of possession of an indecent photograph of a child, namely DVDs entitled, 'Gymboys', 'Soccer Boys', 'Cool Dudes', 'Romanian Mountain Getaway', 'Back Flip', 'Winter Dudes', 'Fast Feet' and 'Genesis Children' on 5th July 2005. He is finally charged with attempting to have, in his possession, an indecent photograph of a child, namely a DVD entitled, 'Sandy Hill'.

Giving evidence to the court, Detective Constable Clive McKee explained he became involved in the case in June 2005 when a video addressed to the defendant was intercepted by Customs officials and brought to the attention of police.

This video, entitled 'Sandy Hill', was viewed by the witness who explained that it contained images of naked young boys who the officer believed to be either pre-puberty or around the age of puberty, frolicking in a river and on a riverbank. "I believe these (boys) were under 16 years of age," Constable McKee told the court.

The officer obtained a warrant to search the defendant's Lisnaskea home, stating 'at that stage he (the defendant) was a Reverend in the Church of Ireland.

During the house search, on 5th July 2005, a number of videos and DVDs were found on top of a wardrobe in an upstairs bedroom. Other items seized during the search included CDs, mini-discs and a computer hard drive. The defendant wasn't at home at this time but was later arrested and taken for interview to Enniskillen Police Station.

During police interview, the defendant admitted to having ordered the video, 'Sandy Hill' over the Internet, paying for it with his credit card.

When he was asked what he thought the video contained he replied, 'naturist content of teenagers', telling officers that in the description it mentioned the video featured 'boys and young men'.

Under police questioning, the defendant admitted he had other DVDs and videos which had 'naturist parts in them', including young boys playing sports and then showing these young boys, some who appeared to be 10 years old and younger, naked in the showers.

Asked by police if there was full frontal nudity, the defendant said there was no specific focus on this but he added that one could see the boys' genitals.

During his first police interview, the Court was told, the defendant also admitted to downloading images from the Internet, saying that he came across the sites searching for 'naturism'.

When asked why some videos had been copied onto DVDs, the defendant said this was purely for preservation as tapes can get chewed and that DVDs were more 'durable'.

Asked why these tapes were upstairs above a wardrobe, the defendant said that you wouldn't leave these things lying around. He said he was aware people would look dimly at (him) looking at naturist videos.

"I am ashamed of those things," he said during police interview. He also told officers he was ashamed that he was a homosexual and that he was abused when he was young.

The court also heard evidence from the defendant's second police interview, which took place on 5th April 2006.

Again, he was questioned about ordering the videos over the Internet, to which he replied he thought they contained naturist images. Asked was he a naturist himself, he said he rarely engaged in naturist activities except going for the odd walk, naked, in remote places.

When asked about a video labelled, 'Soccer Boys' he said he bought this on 'ebay' as part of a job lot marked, 'Coming of Age'.

"I thought it would be boys playing sport - just teenagers playing sport. That's all', he told police, saying he was interested in seeing people learning these things.

Asked did he watch these for sexual gratification, or if he masturbated when he watched these pictures he replied, 'No. That's just not true'.

Asked if he was interested in looking at indecent images of boys, he said he wasn't aware of the content of these videos until after he got them.

Asked why, when he saw them, he didn't destroy these videos or hand them into police, the defendant answered, 'I didn't do that'.

When questioned about the images on his computer, which the court heard were of a similar nature to the videos and asked what interest he had in them, he said, "I just like the friendship part of it, things I never had. The beauty of it.'

The court also heard evidence that in the same area as these DVDs were found there were 'homosexual videos' of male adults having sex, a fact which defence counsel Paul Bacon, BL, submitted had nothing to do with charges before the court.

Defending, Paul Bacon, BL, contended that there was no case for his client to answer, submitting that the images did not meet the criteria of 'indecent' (Category 1), which, he said, 'states images constitute erotic posing with no sexual activity'.

Mr Bacon contested there was no sexual activity in any of the material before the court, neither was there any suggestion any child was abused by this. Referring to one of the police officers during interview, Mr Bacon suggested that the only 'abused' about the kids was their dignity.

Mr Bacon reiterated there was no erotic posing and that, while they were being filmed, 'there is a degree of distance and the children are neither promoting their own sexuality or their own genitalia'.

Prosecuting Charles McKay, QC, asked: 'why do you see so much of the children's genitalia in these films', and he submitted the very purpose of the films was to show this.

Mr McKay said he believed the films had been 'spliced together' and this was a form of 'staging', and that the films involved mostly eastern European children, all looking towards the camera.

Mr McKay insisted there was a strong case for a conviction, saying the defendant had admitted possession of these items.

Mr McKay said the explanation the defendant gave - 'that he had a naturist interest' - was highly implausible and he noted that the defendant admitted he rarely participated in naturist activities.

Mr McKay suggested that the defendant was gaining sexual gratification from the tapes. They were stored in an area where tapes of an adult homosexual nature were stored, showing his attitude towards pornography.

Paul Bacon, defending, said his client had admitted possession of these videos, downloading the images and attempting to get another DVD. He said the Crown case was that these materials featured Category 1 images (erotic poses without sexual activity).

Mr Bacon suggested there was a sequence to these DVDs and that there was no suggestion, whatsoever, of erotic posing. 'The indecency element is the Crown case.'

He said the materials featured children and young people acting in a contextual manner, and that if the Magistrate had any doubt, after viewing all the materials, that they did not depict erotic posing, then the defendant must be acquitted.

The Resident Magistrate, Mr Copeland said he would like some time to consider the case and that he would give his judgement on Friday, 29th June at 10.30am.