English Man Sentenced To Jail For Importation Of Childlike Sex Doll

There is an interesting conviction in the United Kingdom this month where Andrew Dobson, 49, was sentenced for the importation of a sex doll.  The problem is that the doll was too childlike. As a result, he pleaded guilty to importing an indecent object, two counts of making indecent images of children and one count of possessing indecent images of children.  The plea resulted in a sentence of two years and eight months in prison.

Border Force officers identified the mannequin as an obscene childlike doll from Hong Kong when it was in transit.  Dobson was then arrested at his home.  He later admitted to  downloading child abuse images and movies online.

 

The question is how the police defined “child-like” dolls for the purpose of importation.

In this country, we have had a long debate over criminal charges for virtual child porn where no child was actually involved in the production.

Notably, the UK warns about indecent images but does not define them at this site:

Indecent or obscene books, magazines, films, videotapes, DVDs, computer software and other articles containing obscene images. Indecent photographs of children under 18. Photographs includes images on videotapes, DVDs, computer software and other articles.

 

This seems a criminal provision in need for a clearly defined standard.  What do you think?