Legal argument was conducted in the absence of the jury in the Judge Brian Curtin for much of the afternoon. This argument followed the outlining of the prosecution case in Tralee Circuit Court by Ms Mary Ellen Ring SC.
The court heard that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) alleges the images found on Judge Curtin's computer showed children engaged in explicit sexual activity or depicted the genital or anal region of a child.
Judge Curtin is charged with knowingly having in his possession child pornography contrary to the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act of 1998 on May 27th 2002 at his home. He has pleaded not guilty to the charge.
She stressed the allegation was only an allegation. "The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right," she said. "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."
In that Act a child is defined as a person under the age of 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.
"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, Ms Ring said. "You can possess things and not have them about your person."