The lasting impact of historic online news reports
Legal solution: removing indecent image conviction from search engines
Removing indecent image conviction reports from Bing and Yahoo
Challenges in removing outdated criminal convictions online
Final outcome: search results cleared, reputation restored
Can I remove articles about indecent image possession from the internet
Understanding the law around possession of indecent images
Lawyer’s thoughts about the case
Contact us to remove indecent image conviction reports online
The lasting impact of historic online news reports
In 2009, our client, David, (not his real name) was arrested after police intercepted an email containing child abuse images was sent to David without his request or knowledge. The unsolicited email contained indecent images of what appeared to be minors.
David had deleted the email and did not know the sender. Still, his old hard drives were examined and a small number of indecent images, long since deleted, were found. He pleaded guilty and received a suspended sentence.
Despite cooperating fully and continuing to work in his regulated profession, David’s name was included in an exaggerated and inaccurate news report.
The article was picked up by search engines and appeared whenever anyone searched his name, his job title, or his location. Another article followed a few years later after a technical breach of his post-sentencing conditions.
Although these events were more than a decade ago and both convictions are now legally spent, the reports continued to surface on Google and Bing. They were publicly accessible, despite no longer serving any legal or public interest.
Legal solution: removing indecent image conviction from search engines
David came to us looking for a way to remove articles about indecent images from the internet. We explained that news outlets rarely delete old articles, even if they are outdated or inaccurate.
The better and more realistic approach was to have the links to the articles removed from search engine results. This is where the right to be forgotten under UK GDPR becomes vital. It gives individuals the power to ask search engines to remove personal data that is outdated, irrelevant, or harmful.
For David, the continued association with old news about his conviction was unjust and emotionally exhausting. When it comes to cases involving indecent images or sexual offences, we often find that caseworkers at search engines take a particularly hard stance on removal requests.
These types of convictions can trigger stronger reactions, even at the moderation level, making it harder for individuals to have links removed from search results.
However, the law itself does not make special exceptions for sexual offences when it comes to data protection rights. The right to be forgotten under GDPR applies equally to all individuals, regardless of the nature of their past convictions.
This imbalance between internal attitudes and legal standards was a major obstacle in David’s case and one of the key reasons he was initially unable to have those news stories removed from the internet.
Overcoming bias in search engine moderation: getting a conviction for indecent images removed from Google
We encountered significant resistance in getting the search results removed. Search engine caseworkers often take a stricter view when dealing with sexual offences or cases involving indecent images.
While this reaction is understandable on a human level, it isn't supported by the law. UK GDPR makes no distinction between types of criminal convictions when it comes to the right to be forgotten. The law is clear: outdated and irrelevant personal data that causes harm can be removed from search results, regardless of the nature of the offence.
This was the central challenge David faced. His initial attempts to have the news stories removed failed, largely due to an internal reluctance within search engine teams to delist content relating to sexual offences. We tackled this by preparing a legally robust GDPR notice, carefully setting out why continued indexing of the articles was unlawful.
We demonstrated that the content was out of date, that David had fulfilled all his legal obligations, and that there was no longer any public interest in keeping the information searchable. We also challenged any potential bias by reinforcing that the law must be applied equally to all, without prejudice.
It took persistence and expert legal argument, but Google eventually accepted our submission and removed the links from its search results in the UK and across the EU.
Removing indecent image conviction reports from Bing and Yahoo
Encouraged by the result, David instructed us to pursue the same outcome with Bing and Yahoo. We typically begin with Google because it is the most widely used search engine and often the most difficult to persuade when it comes to delisting content.
A successful removal from Google significantly boosts the likelihood of success with other platforms, and in many cases, sets a precedent that strengthens our position.
Furthermore, even if articles are removed from Bing and Yahoo, their continued presence on Google would undermine the effectiveness of any delisting effort. For this reason, we prioritise Google first. Once we secured the outcome with Google, we used the groundwork laid in that submission to make applications to Bing and Yahoo.
While these platforms have their own internal policies, Yahoo initially resisted delisting because of specific search term requirements, our refined and strategic second submission was successful in getting the content removed from both search engines.
Challenges in removing outdated criminal convictions online
The process of removing outdated news about indecent image offences isn’t always straightforward. Search terms can vary, and some URLs reappear due to search engine updates. We continued to monitor David’s case and acted immediately when links resurfaced.
It was also important to identify all variations of David’s name, job title, and location used in searches, such as "indecent image conviction Penarth" or "financial adviser criminal conviction." Including these in our applications was essential to ensure complete de-listing.
Final outcome: search results cleared, reputation restored
David was extremely relieved to see the damaging reports about possession of indecent images disappear from search engines. This was a life-changing moment for him.
While he fully acknowledged the wrongdoings of his past and had worked hard to rehabilitate himself and rebuild his life, the continued presence of outdated online reports had made it feel like the punishment never ended.
With the search results cleared, he and his family could finally move forward, free from the stigma and emotional weight of a conviction that had long since been resolved.
Can I remove articles about indecent image possession from the internet
Yes. If you have a spent conviction for possession of indecent images or any similar offence and news articles are still appearing in search engine results, you may be eligible to have them removed.
Under UK GDPR, you can request that search engines remove links that cause unnecessary harm and no longer serve a public interest. We can help you prepare the necessary legal submissions and guide you through the process from start to finish.
Understanding the law around possession of indecent images
Possession of indecent images of children is a serious offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Creating or distributing such images is dealt with under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
Crucially, these offences require more than just the act of possession, they require the prosecution to prove that the defendant had a guilty mind. To convict someone of possession, the prosecution must show that the person knowingly had the images, recognised they were indecent, and knew—or ought to have known—that the individual in the image was under 18.
This legal threshold means that if someone unknowingly receives such images, such as via a spam email, and deletes them immediately, they should not be automatically found guilty.
In David’s case, he received unsolicited material, deleted it, and had no knowledge of the sender. Yet he was still advised by his then lawyers to plead guilty. This is more common than many realise.
Often, individuals are encouraged to plead guilty under the promise of reduced sentencing or quicker resolution, even if they believe they have a defence.
In practice, many people feel compelled to admit guilt out of fear or exhaustion, especially when facing technical evidence they don’t fully understand.
Though the law recognises defences such as lack of knowledge or the unsolicited nature of the material, successfully arguing them requires strong legal support and clarity around digital forensics.
Even then, courts and juries may infer knowledge based on circumstantial evidence, such as file names or device history. In short, while the legal framework requires knowledge to convict, real-world applications often blur this line.
For those who have served their sentences, acknowledged past wrongdoing, and rebuilt their lives, continued public shaming through online search results only prolongs the punishment. That’s what we sought to correct in David’s case—and it’s what we aim to help others with too.
Lawyer’s thoughts about the case
This was a particularly challenging but deeply rewarding case. We knew from the outset that search engines often take a stricter view on offences involving indecent images, even when the law doesn’t support such discrimination.
Our job was to make sure that the principles of fairness, privacy, and rehabilitation were upheld. We firmly believe that the law must apply equally to everyone, regardless of the offence in question.
What stood out in this case was our client’s determination to move forward, paired with the emotional toll of being continually judged for a past he had long left behind.
It’s hard to understate the stress and stigma that outdated online content can impose on someone who has served their sentence, taken responsibility, and gone on to live a law-abiding life. This case exemplifies why the right to be forgotten exists. It's not about erasing the past—it’s about recognising when continued publication of personal data is no longer fair or necessary.
We’re proud to have helped David achieve this milestone and to show that even in difficult cases, success is possible with the right legal support.
Contact us to remove indecent image conviction reports online
If you're looking for help removing indecent image conviction articles from Google, Bing, or Yahoo, contact our team today. We offer confidential advice and fixed-fee services to give you clarity and peace of mind.