The university as theatre of institutional absurdity.
by Paul Goodman ex.sep.
Litterae ex Sepulchrīs
Preliminary Defence StatementIn the Matter of R v. Jamie PrescottPrepared by Ruth Abramovitz, SolicitorAbramovitz & Gill, Youth Justice Division2 April 2026
Breach of Online Safety Act 2023, s.185 (accessing age-restricted content through circumvention of age assurance measures), contrary to regulations made under the Act.
Venue: Youth Court, Inner London
Date of Alleged Offences: 12 November 2025 – 3 February 2026
I. SUMMARY OF THE DEFENCE POSITION
The defence will demonstrate that Jamie Prescott committed no crime. What he did was attend school.
Young people are “sexual beings” from birth.
Jamie listened. Jamie learned. Jamie discussed what he had learned with his classmates, as students do. He shared educational materials in a private group chat consisting exclusively of fellow students in his RSHE class. He accessed, via a virtual private network, content that his school curriculum had told him was natural, healthy, and nothing to be ashamed of.
For this, the Crown Prosecution Service proposes to give him a criminal record.
II. THE DOUBLE BIND
The court will hear evidence that Jamie Prescott was caught in a contradiction so fundamental that no reasonable child could have navigated it without breaking the law.
On one side: a curriculum. Mandated by the state. Delivered by his school. Sourced from organisations operating under the guidance of WHO and UNESCO. This curriculum told him, that human sexuality is natural, that pornography is a normal part of contemporary sexual culture, that shame is the enemy of health, and that young people have a right to sexual knowledge. These are defensible positions. Many of them are correct.
On the other side: a law. Enacted by the same state. The Online Safety Act 2023, which came into its critical enforcement phase on 25 July 2025, criminalised access to the very content the curriculum had normalised. It required “highly effective age assurance” on every platform hosting sexual content. It made circumvention — by VPN, by false declaration, by any technical means — an offence. It treated children who sought out what adults had taught them to seek as criminals.
The curriculum said: This is natural.
The law said: This is forbidden.
Both were issued by the same government, in the same year, to the same children.
Jamie Prescott did not fail. The system failed Jamie Prescott.
III. WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW
The defence will present the following exhibits, which I ask the court to consider not individually but as a sequence — as a chain of cause and consequence that begins with good intentions, passes through institutional negligence, and ends with a fifteen-year-old boy in a courtroom.
The Seed (Exhibits B–D): The international and domestic frameworks for sexuality education. These are, in my considered opinion, broadly humane documents. The UNESCO International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (2018) promotes age-appropriate knowledge, bodily autonomy, consent, and respect. The WHO Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe follow similar principles. The UK’s own RSHE statutory guidance (2020) aims to equip children with the understanding they need to navigate relationships safely. There is nothing wrong with the principles.
The Soil (Exhibits E–I): What happened when these principles entered the institutional machinery of British education. The court will see that 86 per cent of secondary teachers reported they lacked adequate resources or training to deliver RSHE. That only one in five schools received any RSHE training by 2021. That into this vacuum rushed a cottage industry of third-party organisations — some with direct or indirect links to the pornography industry — who supplied lesson plans, classroom games, and teaching materials with little to no vetting. The court will see materials from providers who told children aged eleven and upwards that watching pornography is “not a bad thing in itself,” that pornography is “fun to watch and sexy to enjoy,” and that the harms of pornography are unproven. The court will see that when Jamie’s mother, Mrs Helena Prescott, requested to review the materials her son was being taught, the school refused on the grounds that the materials were “commercially sensitive.” The secrets we kept from the parents are the secrets the children are now being prosecuted for discovering.
The Fruit (Exhibits J–M): What Jamie actually did. The court will see his class notes — diligent, well-organised notes taken by a student paying attention. The court will see the WhatsApp group in which he and his classmates discussed what they had learned, shared links, and — yes — shared some of the content their teachers had told them was normal. The court will see that when the Online Safety Act made this content inaccessible through legitimate channels, Jamie and his friends did what any technically literate fifteen-year-old would do: they found another way. They did not learn this in a criminal conspiracy. They learned it from each other, in the same way children have always learned what adults refuse to teach them directly — by experiment, by word of mouth, by doing. The VPN was not an instrument of crime. It was the final lesson in a curriculum the state never intended to teach but taught all the same: that the law is absurd, and that the adults in charge do not know what they are doing.
The Harvest (Exhibits N–R): The legal machinery that processed Jamie Prescott from student to defendant. The relevant provisions of the Online Safety Act. The parliamentary debate in which legislators acknowledged, in so many words, that children would attempt to circumvent age restrictions — and declined to address the implications. The police report. The charging decision. The character references from teachers who describe a bright, curious, conscientious student — the very qualities that led him to take his RSHE lessons seriously rather than ignore them.
IV. A NOTE ON THE NATURE OF THIS CASE
I have been a youth justice solicitor for twenty-three years. In that time I have defended children who stole because they were hungry, who fought because they were frightened, who carried knives because they lived in postcodes where not carrying one was its own kind of danger. I have never before defended a child for learning.
I want the court to understand what it is being asked to do. It is being asked to punish a fifteen-year-old boy for the logical consequences of his own education. It is being asked to criminalise curiosity, to make a delinquent out of diligence, to find that a child who did exactly what his school told him was healthy and natural is, in fact, a sex offender.
The state taught Jamie Prescott that sexuality is natural. Then the state criminalised his attempt to understand it. The state told him pornography is “not a bad thing in itself.” Then the state made it illegal for him to see. The state told him to discuss sex openly, without shame. Then the state called it distribution of indecent material when he did.
If the court convicts Jamie Prescott, it will be convicting the curriculum. And if it acquits him — as it must — then someone will have to explain to the British public how we arrived at a system that teaches children to do the things we then imprison them for doing.
That explanation is the purpose of these exhibits.
V. A PERSONAL OBSERVATION
I include this not as a matter of law but because the court may find it useful in understanding the broader context.
In 1962, an American social critic named Paul Goodman wrote that the organised system of society “creates the delinquency it then punishes.” He was writing about young men in New York who had been given no meaningful work, no purposeful role, no reason to participate in a social order that had nothing to offer them — and who were then arrested for the aimlessness that resulted. He argued that the moral question was not whether young people were “good enough” for the institutions we had built, but whether those institutions were “useful to develop the potentialities of intelligence, grace, and freedom.”
I think of Goodman often when I read Jamie’s file. The potentialities of intelligence, grace, and freedom were present in this boy. His school notes show it. His curiosity shows it. Even his technical ingenuity — the VPN configuration, the workarounds, the peer-to-peer sharing of knowledge — shows it. These are the skills of a resourceful, adaptable mind encountering obstacles and solving them. In another context, we would call this education.
Instead, we are calling it crime.
VI. RELIEF SOUGHT
The defence respectfully requests that all charges against Jamie Alexander Prescott be dismissed.
The exhibits that follow are the evidence.
Ruth Abramovitz
Abramovitz & Gill
2 April 2026
-e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
I submit the following excerpts from the UNESCO International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (2018) as Exhibit B in support of the defense of Jamie Prescott.
This document represents the considered position of six United Nations agencies on what children and young people should be taught about sexuality. It was developed through multi-year international consultation. It is evidence-informed, grounded in human rights frameworks, and endorsed by the member states of the United Nations, including the United Kingdom.
I ask the court to read these excerpts carefully. They are reasonable. They are humane. They are correct. And they are directly relevant to this case, because they describe, in precise terms, what Jamie Prescott’s school was obligated to deliver under the United Kingdom’s own statutory guidance on Relationships and Sex Education.
What follows is the framework. What was actually delivered is the subject of later exhibits.
The UNESCO Guidance defines Comprehensive Sexuality Education as a curriculum-based process of teaching and learning about the cognitive, emotional, physical, and social aspects of sexuality. Its purpose is to equip children and young people with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that will empower them to realize their health, well-being, and dignity; to develop respectful social and sexual relationships; to consider how their choices affect their own well-being and that of others; and to understand and ensure the protection of their rights throughout their lives.
CASE NOTE: Note the emphasis on relationships, dignity, and rights. This is not a pornography syllabus. This is a framework for teaching young people to navigate the world as it actually exists. The distinction matters.
The Guidance acknowledges that many young people approach adulthood receiving inaccurate, incomplete, or judgement-laden information about sexuality, often made worse by embarrassment and silence from the adults in their lives. In many societies, attitudes and laws discourage public discussion of sexuality and sexual behaviour. The Guidance identifies this silence itself as a source of harm — not a protection against it.
The document further states that this inadequate preparation not only increases children’s vulnerability to exploitation and other harmful outcomes, but represents a failure of society’s duty bearers to fulfil their obligations to an entire generation.
CASE NOTE: “Duty bearers.” The language is instructive. The UNESCO framework positions the adult world as bearing a duty toward children — a duty of truthful, age-appropriate communication about sexuality. The question this case raises is what happens when those same duty bearers fulfil that duty in the classroom and then criminalise the child for acting on what was taught. Who has failed whom?
The Guidance reports, based on extensive review of the research literature, that comprehensive sexuality education programmes do not increase sexual activity, sexual risk-taking behaviour, or rates of sexually transmitted infection. This is stated plainly, because it is the most common objection and the evidence is unambiguous.
What the evidence does show is that these programmes contribute to delayed initiation of sexual intercourse, reduced frequency of sexual intercourse, reduced number of sexual partners, reduced risk-taking, and increased use of condoms and contraception.
In other words: teaching young people about sexuality makes them more cautious, not less. The moral panic is empirically wrong.
CASE NOTE: I include this because the prosecution’s case rests, implicitly, on the assumption that exposure to sexual knowledge causes sexual harm. The international evidence says the opposite. Jamie Prescott was not corrupted by his education. He was educated by it. What corrupted the process was the distance between what should have been taught and what was actually delivered — a distance this court will shortly be asked to examine.
Sexual and Reproductive Health
These are structured across four age groups: 5–8, 9–12, 12–15, and 15–18 years. At each stage, the learning objectives build on previous knowledge in a developmentally appropriate sequence.
Describe the ways that people express their sexuality, including the role of media and technology
CASE NOTE: Read that last objective again. The UNESCO framework explicitly anticipates that children aged 12–15 will encounter sexuality through media and technology. It does not pretend otherwise. It proposes to teach them how to navigate that encounter. The UK Government endorsed this framework. The UK Government also passed the Online Safety Act 2023, which criminalises the encounter the framework was designed to address.
The right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing. Or it does, and does not care.
The Guidance states that parents and families are the primary sexuality educators of their children. It emphasises that schools should work in partnership with parents and communities. It calls for transparency about curriculum content and encourages parental involvement.
The Guidance explicitly warns against implementing sexuality education without building community support and parental understanding.
CASE NOTE: This is perhaps the most damning excerpt of all, and I submit it here because of what will follow in Exhibit H. The UNESCO framework — the framework the UK Government adopted — calls for transparency with parents. It calls for partnership. It calls for community support.
What Jamie’s mother Helena Prescott received, when she asked to see the materials being taught to her son, was a letter from Meridian Academy stating that the third-party provider’s lesson plans were protected by commercial confidentiality agreements and could not be shared with parents.
The international framework said: tell the parents everything.
The school said: the materials are commercially sensitive.
The child was caught in between.
The Guidance acknowledges that the quality and impact of sexuality education depends on the capacity of teachers. It states that effective programmes require teachers who are trained, supported, and willing to deliver the curriculum. It warns that untrained or unsupported teachers are unlikely to deliver effective sexuality education.
The document recommends that teachers receive both pre-service and in-service training, including opportunities to explore their own values and attitudes regarding sexuality, and to develop comfort and confidence in discussing these topics.
CASE NOTE: The UK Department for Education’s own data shows that by 2021, only twenty percent of schools had received training to deliver Relationships, Sex and Health Education. The remaining eighty percent were expected to implement a statutory curriculum for which no training existed. In practice, this meant schools outsourced delivery to third-party providers — organisations operating outside the quality assurance structures the UNESCO framework demands. Jamie Prescott’s teacher, Mr David Hargreaves, received no RSHE-specific training. He was given a set of slides by an external provider and told to deliver them. He did his best. His best was not good enough, because it was never supposed to be his responsibility alone.
The system set up a teacher to fail, and now proposes to use him as a prosecution witness against the student he was trying to serve.
The Guidance defines sexuality as a core dimension of being human which includes understanding the human body, attachment and love, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, sexual intimacy, pleasure, and reproduction. It recognises that sexuality is experienced and expressed in thoughts, fantasies, desires, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviours, practices, roles, and relationships. It states that these expressions are influenced by the interaction of biological, psychological, social, economic, political, cultural, legal, historical, religious, and spiritual factors.
Crucially, the Guidance affirms that sexuality is a natural part of human development and should be understood within its full complexity rather than reduced to risk, disease, or moral failing.
CASE NOTE: “A natural part of human development.” This is the seed. This is what the entire framework rests upon. Not that children should be exposed to pornography. Not that teenagers should be encouraged to have sex. Simply that sexuality exists, that it is part of what it means to be human, and that young people are better served by honest education than by silence and shame.
Jamie Prescott was taught this. He believed it. He is now being prosecuted for the logical consequences of that belief.
I submit this document not as a curiosity but as the foundation of the defense.
The UNESCO International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education represents the best available international consensus on what children should learn about sexuality and when. It is evidence-based. It is endorsed by six United Nations agencies. It was adopted, in substance, by the United Kingdom Government when it made Relationships, Sex and Health Education statutory in 2020.
The defense will demonstrate, through the exhibits that follow, that the principles in this document were systematically betrayed in their implementation — not by the children who received the education, but by the institutions that delivered it. The UNESCO framework called for trained teachers; Jamie’s school had none. It called for transparency with parents; Jamie’s school invoked commercial confidentiality. It called for age-appropriate, evidence-based content; Jamie’s school outsourced to providers whose materials bore no meaningful relationship to these standards.
And when the predictable consequences of that institutional failure manifested in the behaviour of a fifteen-year-old boy who did exactly what his education suggested was natural and healthy, the state chose not to examine the failure.
It chose to prosecute the child.
Filed as Exhibit B
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
Exhibit B presented the global framework. Exhibit C presents the European framework — the document that more directly shaped the policy environment within which Jamie Prescott was educated.
The WHO/BZgA Standards were published in 2010, a full decade before RSHE became statutory in England. They were developed through a series of expert workshops between 2008 and 2009, drawing on the experience of countries where sexuality education had been mandatory for decades — notably the Netherlands, where it has been compulsory since 1993, and Sweden, since 1955.
The relevance to this case is straightforward. The United Kingdom adopted its RSHE statutory guidance in 2020, drawing on the principles articulated in both the UNESCO and WHO frameworks. The defense does not dispute the principles. The defense relies on them.
The WHO Standards distinguish between what they call “holistic” sexuality education and narrower, risk-focused approaches. In the holistic model, sexuality education is not primarily concerned with preventing disease or pregnancy. It is concerned with the full development of the person — with emotional literacy, the capacity for relationships, the understanding of one’s own body, and the ability to navigate the social world with confidence and respect.
The Standards describe sexuality as a central aspect of being human throughout life, encompassing sex, gender identities and roles, sexual orientation, eroticism, pleasure, intimacy, and reproduction.
CASE NOTE: The word “pleasure” appears in the WHO definition. I note this because it will become relevant. The UNESCO framework uses it. The WHO framework uses it. The UK guidance does not — but the third-party providers who filled the gap did, and with considerably less nuance. The international frameworks mention pleasure in the context of holistic understanding. The providers Jamie encountered mentioned it in the context of pornography consumption.
The Standards argue that in most European countries, young people have access to a wide range of sources of information about sexuality — especially the internet — but that much of this information is distorted, unrealistic, or explicitly pornographic. The Standards state that this reality makes formal sexuality education more necessary, not less.
The document argues that leaving young people to learn about sexuality from pornography and peer rumour is not a neutral act. It is a decision by adults to abandon the field to commercial and unregulated sources. Formal sexuality education exists to provide a counterweight — accurate information, critical thinking skills, and a framework of values within which to evaluate what they encounter.
CASE NOTE: Read that again. The WHO framework, published in 2010, anticipates precisely the situation Jamie Prescott found himself in. It recognises that children will encounter pornography. It does not propose to prevent this — because it cannot be prevented, a fact the framers of the Online Safety Act 2023 appear not to have grasped, or chose to ignore. Instead, the WHO framework proposes to equip children to understand what they see. The question is whether Jamie’s school did this. The answer, as the later exhibits will demonstrate, is that it tried, with unvetted materials, no training, and no quality assurance — and produced the opposite of what was intended.
The WHO Standards include a detailed matrix of topics and learning objectives organised by age group. For the age group 12–15, the matrix includes, among many other topics:
Help young people to develop a positive attitude toward sexuality and the enjoyment of it
Enable young people to communicate about pregnancy and contraception
Enable young people to critically evaluate pornographic material
CASE NOTE: The critical phrase is “critically evaluate.” The WHO framework does not propose to shield children from the existence of pornography. It proposes to teach them critical evaluation. This is the only defensible position, because the alternative — pretending pornography does not exist while it saturates the digital environment — fails every child it claims to protect.
Jamie Prescott’s curriculum was supposed to teach critical evaluation. What it actually taught is the subject of Part II.
Monitoring and evaluation
The Standards warn explicitly against implementing sexuality education without these preconditions. They state that poorly implemented programmes may be ineffective or, in some cases, counterproductive.
CASE NOTE: I will not labour this point, because it will be laboured extensively in later exhibits. I will simply note that by the time Jamie Prescott sat in Mr Hargreaves’s Year 10 RSHE class in 2025, not one of these preconditions had been met at Meridian Academy. Not one.
The legal and policy framework was contradictory. The teacher was untrained. The materials were unvetted. The parents were excluded. No monitoring or evaluation had taken place.
The WHO framework calls this a precondition for failure. The United Kingdom made it standard practice.
The Standards report that evidence from countries with long-standing comprehensive sexuality education programmes shows consistent positive outcomes. In the Netherlands, where school-based sexuality education has been mandatory since the early 1990s, adolescent sexual health indicators are among the best in Europe: low rates of teenage pregnancy, low rates of sexually transmitted infections, and — notably — a later average age of first sexual intercourse than in the United Kingdom.
The Standards draw a direct link between quality sexuality education and reduced harm. They do not claim that sexuality education eliminates risk. They demonstrate that it reduces risk, and that the absence of quality sexuality education increases it.
CASE NOTE: The comparison is instructive. The Netherlands has been teaching comprehensive sexuality education for over thirty years. Its children have better sexual health outcomes than British children. Its approach is built on the principles the WHO framework describes. The United Kingdom adopted those same principles in 2020, handed implementation to untrained teachers and unvetted commercial providers, and five years later is prosecuting a fifteen-year-old for the consequences.
If we were designing a system to produce the worst possible outcomes, we would struggle to improve on what actually happened.
The Standards situate sexuality education within a human rights framework. They reference the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. They argue that access to accurate information about one’s own body and sexuality is a fundamental right, not a privilege to be granted or withheld by the state.
The European Court of Human Rights affirmed this position in 2011, upholding the right of states to provide mandatory sexuality education, and recognising the right of children to receive objective, critical, and pluralistic information about sexuality.
CASE NOTE: Jamie Prescott has rights. This is easy to forget in the apparatus of prosecution. He has the right to education, including education about his own body and sexuality. He has the right to information. He has the right not to be criminalised for acting on knowledge the state itself provided.
The WHO framework recognises these rights explicitly. The prosecution ignores them entirely. The defense does not.
Exhibits B and C together constitute the international framework within which the United Kingdom’s RSHE statutory guidance was developed. They are rigorous, evidence-based, and humane. They anticipate the challenges of educating young people in a digital environment saturated with sexual content. They propose a response based on knowledge, critical thinking, and respect — not on prohibition, censorship, and criminal prosecution.
The defense submits these documents not as aspirational ideals but as the standards against which the United Kingdom’s actual practice must be measured.
In the exhibit that follows, we will examine what the UK Government said it would do. In the exhibits after that, we will examine what it actually did.
The gap between the two is where Jamie Prescott’s childhood was lost.
Filed as Exhibit C
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
The international frameworks — Exhibits B and C — describe what should happen. Exhibit D describes what the United Kingdom said would happen. The distance between this document and reality is where the defense case begins to take its shape.
Relationships and Sex Education became compulsory for all secondary school pupils in England from September 2020, under the Children and Social Work Act 2017. Health Education became compulsory for all pupils in state-funded schools.
The statutory guidance states that it replaces the previous Sex and Relationship Education guidance from 2000 — a twenty-year gap during which the internet transformed human sexuality from something encountered through personal experience and limited media into something encountered by children via high-definition streaming video accessible from any device at any time.
The guidance acknowledges this. It states: “Today’s children and young people are growing up in an increasingly complex world and living their lives seamlessly on and offline. This presents many positive and exciting opportunities, but also challenges and risks.”
CASE NOTE: The guidance knew. It said so in its opening pages. The world had changed. The old guidance was twenty years out of date. Children needed preparation for what they would encounter. This was not a surprise to anyone. It was the entire reason for the legislation.
For secondary schools, the statutory guidance specifies that by the end of secondary education, pupils should know:
How stereotypes, particularly those based on sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or disability, can cause damage
How sharing and viewing sexual images may constitute a criminal offence
How people can actively communicate and recognise consent and non-consent
The facts about reproductive health, including fertility and the potential impact of lifestyle on fertility
CASE NOTE: Note what is present and what is absent. The guidance tells schools to teach that pornography “presents a distorted picture.” It tells schools to teach that sharing sexual images “may constitute a criminal offence.” It does not tell schools how to reconcile these two propositions with the simultaneous message — drawn from the international frameworks — that sexuality is natural, that young people have a right to information, and that shame is counterproductive.
The guidance places these contradictions side by side without comment. Schools were left to resolve them. Most could not. Jamie’s school was among them.
The statutory guidance states:
“Schools may choose to work with external agencies to enhance delivery of these subjects. Where schools do choose to work with external agencies, they should check the credentials of the provider. The school should ensure that the teaching delivered by the external agency fits with the planned curriculum and the ethos of the school.”
It further states:
“It is important that the school maintains oversight of the content and delivery of any external agency teaching.”
CASE NOTE: “Should check.” “Should ensure.” “It is important.”
Not “must.” Not “shall.” Not “are required by law to.”
The guidance creates a statutory obligation on schools to deliver RSHE. It then delegates the actual mechanism of delivery to external providers. It suggests — without requiring — that schools check what those providers teach. And it provides no mechanism whatsoever for doing so.
By 2021, seventy-nine percent of secondary schools in England were using external providers to deliver some or all of their RSHE curriculum. The DfE’s own research acknowledges this. What the research does not examine is whether any of those schools had actually reviewed the materials their providers were using. At Meridian Academy, the answer was no. Mrs Woolley’s safeguarding files contain no record of any review. Mr Hargreaves was handed a set of slides on a USB stick by a representative of the provider and told that the lesson plan was “self-explanatory.” He had never seen the slides before the lesson in which he used them.
The statutory guidance told schools to maintain oversight. It did not tell them how. It did not fund the training. It did not create the structures. It issued a command into a vacuum and moved on.
The 2020 guidance states: “Schools should ensure that parents know what will be taught and when.” It recommends that schools consult with parents in developing their RSHE policy.
It also states that parents have the right to withdraw their children from sex education — but not from relationships education or health education. The boundary between these categories is, in practice, unclear, particularly when the topics involve online pornography, sexual imagery, and consent.
CASE NOTE: This is where the system began to fracture.
Helena Prescott — Jamie’s mother — requested a copy of the RSHE materials being used in her son’s Year 10 classes. Her email, dated 14 November 2025, is submitted as Exhibit H. The school’s response — that the materials were subject to the third-party provider’s intellectual property protections and could not be shared — is also part of that exhibit.
The statutory guidance said: tell parents what is being taught. The commercial agreement said: you cannot show parents what is being taught. Both bore the authority of the system.
Helena Prescott tried to exercise her statutory right to know. She was refused by the provider’s commercial right to secrecy. She escalated. The school asked her not to. She persisted. The school stopped responding.
Six months later, her son was arrested.
The second most commonly cited challenge was uncertainty about what content was appropriate
The DfE’s response was to publish non-statutory “implementation guidance” and a series of online training modules. These were voluntary. Their uptake was not systematically tracked.
CASE NOTE: A government made sexuality education compulsory. It did not make teacher training compulsory. It did not fund teacher training. It did not monitor whether teacher training occurred. It then expressed surprise when the resulting education was delivered badly.
Mr Hargreaves is a geography teacher. He was assigned to deliver RSHE because he had a free period on Tuesday afternoons and was, in his head of department’s words, “good with the kids.” He completed no training module. He read no implementation guidance. He received a set of slides from a provider called Illuminate Education and was told that Year 10 needed four sessions before Christmas.
He did his best. I am not here to blame David Hargreaves. I am here to point out that he was set up to fail by a system that made demands it refused to resource.
In July 2025, the Department for Education published revised statutory guidance. The revision included, for the first time, explicit requirements for parental transparency. Schools were told that parents have a legal right to see what their children are being taught. The revised guidance included age ratings for certain topics and restricted the age at which specific content could be introduced.
CASE NOTE: The revision is an implicit acknowledgment that the 2020 guidance was insufficient. The government recognised — five years late — that parental transparency had not been achieved, that age-appropriate delivery had not been ensured, and that external providers had not been adequately regulated.
Jamie Prescott was educated under the old guidance. His RSHE lessons took place in the autumn and spring terms of 2025, before the revised guidance was published. He was taught by an untrained teacher using unvetted materials from an external provider his mother was not permitted to review.
The system reformed itself in July. It arrested Jamie in March.
The revised guidance is evidence of institutional learning. It is also evidence that the institution knew it had failed. The question is whether Jamie Prescott should bear the consequences of that failure.
Exhibits B, C, and D together form Part I of the defense evidence — The Seed.
The international community agreed on what children should be taught about sexuality. The United Kingdom adopted those principles. The principles are sound. The defense endorses them.
But between the principle and the practice, something went catastrophically wrong. The guidance was statutory; the training was not. The curriculum was compulsory; the quality assurance was voluntary. Parents were promised transparency; they received commercial confidentiality. Teachers were expected to deliver sensitive content; they were given a USB stick and wished good luck.
Part II of the defense evidence will examine what happened in that gap — what was actually taught, by whom, using what materials, with what oversight. The court will find that the materials Jamie Prescott encountered bore little resemblance to the frameworks submitted in Exhibits B and C. They bore little resemblance to the guidance in Exhibit D. They bore a great deal of resemblance to the unregulated, commercially driven, ideologically inflected content that flourishes wherever institutions create demand without accountability.
The seed was good. The soil was contaminated.
Filed as Exhibit D
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187
End of Part I: THE SEED -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
The court has now read the international frameworks (Exhibits B and C) and the UK statutory guidance (Exhibit D). These are what Jamie Prescott’s education was supposed to look like.
Exhibit E is what it actually looked like.
The following is the lesson plan Mr David Hargreaves received from Illuminate Education Ltd on a USB stick in September 2025, three weeks before he was due to deliver it. He had not seen it before. He had not been trained to deliver it. He had not been asked whether he was comfortable with its content. He had been told it was “self-explanatory” and aligned with the statutory guidance.
I have redacted the copyright notice at Illuminate Education’s request, though I note the irony. The materials were protected from Jamie’s mother. They are now evidence in his prosecution.
Students will understand the legal framework around pornography and age restrictions
Resources needed: Projector, printed discussion cards, anonymous question box
Starter Activity (10 minutes): Myth or Fact?
“People who make pornography are being exploited.” [MYTH — Explain that many performers choose the profession and advocate for their rights. Note: some exploitation exists in the industry, as in all industries]
Teacher Note: The aim of this activity is to normalise the conversation around pornography. Students may giggle or seem uncomfortable. This is expected. Use a calm, matter-of-fact tone. Avoid language that implies moral judgement.
Main Activity 1 (15 minutes): The Pornography Spectrum
Extreme/Illegal: Depicts violence, coercion, or involves minors. Always illegal. Always harmful.
Key message: Not all pornography is the same. The existence of harmful pornography does not mean all pornography is harmful. Learning to distinguish between categories is a critical skill.
Discussion prompt: “Why do you think society finds it difficult to have open conversations about pornography?”
Main Activity 2 (15 minutes): Group Discussion Cards
Distribute the following scenarios to small groups. Each group discusses and feeds back.
Card A: “Alex, 15, watches pornography regularly. Their friend says this is ‘normal.’ Is it?” Expected response: Many young people encounter pornography. It is common but that doesn’t mean it should replace real relationships education. Encourage students to think about what ‘normal’ means.
Card B: “Jordan found that watching pornography helped them understand their own sexuality. Is this a valid experience?” Expected response: Yes. For some people, pornography can be a way of exploring questions about sexuality in private. However, it should not be the only source of information.
Card C: “Sam’s partner wants them to recreate something they saw in pornography. Sam isn’t comfortable. What should they do?” Expected response: Consent is essential. Sam should communicate their feelings. No one should feel pressured to do anything they’re not comfortable with.
Card D: “Taylor shared a pornographic image with friends on a group chat. Is this okay?” Expected response: Sharing pornographic images can have legal consequences, especially if anyone in the image or anyone receiving it is under 18. Discuss the law around image sharing.
Plenary (10 minutes): Three Things I Learned
Students write anonymously on sticky notes. Teacher collects and reads selected responses aloud (screening for appropriateness).
Homework Extension: “Research one organisation that campaigns for ethical pornography production. Write a paragraph about their aims and methods.”
Higher ability: Extend with reflection on how cultural and religious backgrounds might shape attitudes to pornography
Summative: Homework task
Safeguarding Note: If a student discloses that they have been shown pornography by an adult, or have been coerced into sharing images, follow the school’s safeguarding procedure immediately.
END OF LESSON PLAN
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
I submit this document without comment on the question of whether pornography is harmful. That is not the issue before the court. The issue before the court is the distance between what the UNESCO and WHO frameworks describe and what this lesson plan delivers.
The international frameworks call for “critical evaluation of pornography.” This lesson plan calls pornography “a common part of contemporary media culture” and instructs teachers to “avoid language that implies moral judgement.” The frameworks call for understanding the difference between media portrayals and real-life sexuality. This lesson plan offers a “Pornography Spectrum” that categorises types of pornography as though selecting from a menu.
The homework asks fifteen-year-olds to research “ethical pornography production.”
The statutory guidance states that students should know that pornography “presents a distorted picture of sexual behaviours.” This lesson plan states that “the existence of harmful pornography does not mean all pornography is harmful.”
These are not the same position. The statutory guidance is cautious. The lesson plan is advocacy.
But the point I wish to make to the court is not that this lesson plan is ideologically motivated, though it is. The point is that Mr Hargreaves had no training to recognise the divergence. He had no framework against which to evaluate it. He was given a USB stick. He was told it was aligned with the guidance. He delivered it.
And Jamie Prescott — bright, curious, compliant Jamie — went home, opened his laptop, and did the homework.
Filed as Exhibit E
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
Exhibit E was the lesson plan from Illuminate Education, the provider Meridian Academy contracted. Exhibit F is a different resource — a slide deck produced by the Digital Literacy Alliance, a nonprofit that offers free RSHE support materials to schools.
Mr Hargreaves did not use this resource in class. But it was available on the school’s shared drive, uploaded by a previous RSHE coordinator who left in 2023. When Jamie Prescott was preparing for his RSHE assessment, he found it in the shared resources folder on the school’s learning platform. He read it. He shared the link with his study group.
This is one of the documents the prosecution claims Jamie “distributed.”
LET’S DISCUSS PORNOGRAPHY
A resource for KS4 RSHE
Digital Literacy Alliance — Supporting Schools Since 2017
Pornography is often talked about as something that is BAD or DAMAGING, especially for young people. But the truth is more complicated than that. The research is not settled, and many of the claims about pornography’s harms come from organisations with a moral or religious agenda rather than a scientific one.
In this session, we’re going to look at pornography honestly and without judgement.
Pornography is sexually explicit material created for the purpose of sexual arousal.
It is:
✓ Legal for adults to view, produce, and share
✓ One of the largest entertainment industries in the world
✓ Consumed by the majority of adults in the UK
✓ Available in an enormous variety of genres and styles
It is NOT:
✗ A guide to real-life sex
✗ Made for children (though many young people do encounter it)
✗ Always harmful or degrading
✗ Something to be ashamed of watching
-
2020s: Debates over age verification and regulation intensify
Discussion question: How has technology changed the way people access and think about pornography?
MYTH: “Pornography causes violence.”
FACT: There is no established causal link between pornography consumption and violent behaviour. Some studies suggest correlations, but correlation is not causation.
MYTH: “Pornography is addictive.”
FACT: “Pornography addiction” is not a recognised diagnosis in the DSM-5 or ICD-11. While some individuals may develop problematic usage patterns, framing it as addiction is considered misleading by many researchers.
MYTH: “All pornography exploits performers.”
FACT: The adult entertainment industry includes performers who actively choose their work, negotiate their terms, and advocate for their rights. Like any industry, it also includes exploitation, which should be addressed through regulation, not prohibition.
MYTH: “Watching pornography means you don’t respect your partner.”
FACT: Many people in healthy, respectful relationships watch pornography. It is a personal choice.
You may have heard that pornography “desensitises” people — making them less interested in real intimacy and more interested in extreme content.
Think of it like this: if you eat cake every day, you might get bored of vanilla sponge and want something more exciting. But that doesn’t mean cake is bad. It means you should think about your relationship with cake and whether it’s still enjoyable.
The same applies to pornography. If you find yourself wanting more extreme content, or if you’re watching more than you’d like, it might be worth thinking about why — without shame or judgement.
-
Sharing sexual images of anyone under 18 is illegal, even if you are also under 18
Important: The law treats the sharing of sexual images very seriously. Even if something feels like “just a joke” or “everyone does it,” there can be real legal consequences.
If you choose to view pornography:
✓ Remember it is entertainment, not education
✓ Think about whether what you’re watching aligns with your values
✓ Consider ethical sources that prioritise performer consent and welfare
✓ Never share pornographic material with anyone who hasn’t asked for it
✓ If you feel uncomfortable, stop and talk to a trusted adult
If you choose NOT to view pornography:
✓ That’s equally valid
✓ No one should pressure you to watch anything you don’t want to
✓ Your choice should be respected
CEOP: www.ceop.police.uk
END OF PRESENTATION
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
I draw the court’s attention to Slide 2, which states that claims about pornography’s harms come from organisations with “a moral or religious agenda rather than a scientific one.” This is presented as a factual claim in educational materials designed for fifteen-year-olds. It is not factual. It is an ideological position. The peer-reviewed literature on pornography’s effects on adolescents includes substantial evidence of association with earlier sexual debut, unrealistic sexual expectations, increased acceptance of sexual aggression, and body image disturbance. Dismissing this literature as agenda-driven is itself agenda-driven.
I draw the court’s attention to Slide 6, which compares pornography consumption to eating cake. The analogy is designed to normalise desensitisation. It does not mention that the “more extreme content” the analogy cheerfully references includes depictions of coercion, degradation, and physical violence — content that constitutes a significant proportion of freely available mainstream pornography.
I draw the court’s attention to Slide 8, which instructs students who “choose to view pornography” to “consider ethical sources.” These are fifteen-year-old children. They cannot legally access any pornography. The slide instructs them on how to consume something they are legally prohibited from consuming, while a different section of the same presentation tells them the law treats image sharing “very seriously.”
This resource was available on Meridian Academy’s shared learning platform. Jamie Prescott found it while studying for an assessment. He shared the link with his classmates. The prosecution calls this “distribution of indecent material.”
I call it a student sharing a school resource with his study group.
Filed as Exhibit F
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
SafeSpace UK is a registered children’s charity. It operates a telephone helpline, an online chat service, and a YouTube channel aimed at young people aged 12–18. It receives funding from the Department for Education, the National Lottery Community Fund, and several corporate sponsors.
In March 2022, SafeSpace UK published a video entitled “The Real Deal: Porn Facts for Young People” on its YouTube channel. The video was promoted to schools as a RSHE resource. It appeared on recommended resource lists published by three local education authorities. A link to it was included in the Year 10 RSHE folder on Meridian Academy’s learning platform.
The video was removed from YouTube in November 2023 following a campaign by the Safe Schools Alliance, which identified the content as inappropriate. By the time of its removal, it had been viewed 2.74 million times. It had been live for twenty months. However, Meridian Academy’s RSHE coordinator had downloaded the video file to the school’s learning platform in June 2022 as part of the Year 10 resource folder. This local copy was never removed. It remained available to students — including Jamie Prescott — long after the original was taken down from YouTube. Jamie first watched it in October 2023, when he was in Year 9. He watched it again in October 2025, in Year 10, when he found it while browsing the RSHE resources folder. He bookmarked it. The bookmark appears in his browser history, which forms part of the prosecution’s evidence bundle.
I submit the transcript below.
[Bright, animated title card. Upbeat music. The SafeSpace logo appears alongside colourful cartoon figures.]
PRESENTER (V/O): Hey! Welcome to SafeSpace — where we talk about the stuff nobody else wants to talk about. Today’s topic? Pornography. Yep, we’re going there.
[Text on screen: “PORN — Let’s be honest about it”]
PRESENTER: So here’s the thing. Loads of you have told us you’ve seen porn. Some of you were looking for it. Some of you just stumbled on it. And some of you have questions about it that you’re too embarrassed to ask anyone. That’s what we’re here for.
PRESENTER: First up: porn is everywhere. Seriously. It’s one of the biggest industries in the world. Millions of people watch it. Your parents probably watch it. It’s not some dark, scary secret — it’s just part of the modern world.
[Text on screen: “70% of UK adults have watched porn”]
PRESENTER: And here’s the part that might surprise you: porn can actually be fun to watch and enjoyable as a form of entertainment. Lots of people find it exciting, interesting, or even educational. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
[Text on screen: “No shame. No judgement.”]
PRESENTER: But — and this is a big but — porn is NOT real life. It’s like a superhero film, right? You don’t watch the Avengers and think you can fly. Same thing with porn. The bodies are often enhanced, the situations are scripted, and the sex is performed for a camera, not for the people doing it.
PRESENTER: So what kinds of porn are out there? Well, loads, actually. Here are some of the categories you might come across:
Hardcore
PRESENTER: Some of these might sound weird or scary, and that’s okay. You don’t have to watch any of it. But knowing these categories exist is part of understanding the media landscape you’re living in. It’s all about being informed, not shocked.
PRESENTER: Now, the important stuff. If you watch porn — and we’re not saying you should or shouldn’t — here are some things to keep in mind:
If you’re worried about how much you’re watching, talk to someone you trust
PRESENTER: And one more thing. If anyone — an adult, an older student, anyone — shows you pornography or tries to get you to share sexual images, that’s NOT okay. That’s a safeguarding issue and you should tell someone straight away.
PRESENTER: The number one takeaway? Porn exists. You’re probably going to see it at some point, if you haven’t already. And that’s okay. What matters is how you think about it. Be curious, be critical, and be kind to yourself.
[End card: SafeSpace logo, helpline number, website URL]
END OF TRANSCRIPT
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
This video was produced by a children’s charity. It was funded in part by the Department for Education. It was promoted by local education authorities. It was available on a school learning platform.
It tells children that pornography “can actually be fun to watch and enjoyable as a form of entertainment.” It lists pornography categories — including BDSM and hardcore — to an audience of twelve-to-eighteen-year-olds. It tells them that “knowing these categories exist is part of understanding the media landscape.”
The statutory guidance says children should know that pornography “presents a distorted picture of sexual behaviours.” This video says pornography is “fun to watch.” These are not compatible statements.
The statutory guidance says children should be taught “how to identify harmful content online.” This video says that knowing about BDSM and hardcore categories is “being informed, not shocked.” It presents categorisation as literacy rather than risk awareness.
I do not submit this exhibit to argue that pornography is inherently harmful. I submit it to demonstrate the catastrophic gap between what the international frameworks intended, what the statutory guidance said, and what a fifteen-year-old boy actually encountered when the system delivered its education.
Jamie Prescott watched this video in October 2023. He was thirteen. It was produced by a children’s charity. It was on his school’s platform. It told him that pornography is fun, that shame is unnecessary, and that categories of pornographic content are things he should understand.
He understood. He explored. He shared what he found with his friends, as teenagers do.
The system now calls this a crime.
Filed as Exhibit G
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
This exhibit requires no commentary from me. The documents speak for themselves.
From: Helena Prescott (h.prescott@outlook.com)
To: RSHE Coordinator, Meridian Academy (rshe@meridianacademy.org.uk)
Date: 14 November 2025
Subject: Request for RSHE Curriculum Materials — Year 10
Dear RSHE Coordinator,
I am writing to request copies of the materials currently being used in my son Jamie’s Year 10 Relationships, Sex and Health Education lessons. Jamie has mentioned some of the topics covered and I would like to see the full lesson plans and any resources, presentations, or worksheets that have been used.
I understand that the DfE guidance says schools should be transparent with parents about RSHE content, and I would appreciate the opportunity to review the materials so I can support Jamie’s learning at home.
Could you please let me know how I can access these?
Many thanks,
Helena Prescott
From: Diane Woolley, Head of Safeguarding (d.woolley@meridianacademy.org.uk)
To: Helena Prescott
Date: 19 November 2025
Subject: RE: Request for RSHE Curriculum Materials — Year 10
Dear Mrs Prescott,
Thank you for your email and for your interest in Jamie’s RSHE education. We are always pleased when parents engage with their children’s learning.
I can confirm that Meridian Academy follows the Department for Education’s statutory guidance on RSHE and that all materials used in class have been selected to support age-appropriate learning outcomes. Our RSHE programme is delivered in partnership with Illuminate Education Ltd, a specialist provider with extensive experience in secondary schools.
With regard to your request for specific materials, I am afraid I must let you know that the lesson plans and presentation slides are the intellectual property of Illuminate Education and are provided to us under a licensing agreement that restricts reproduction and distribution. I am therefore unable to provide copies at this time.
However, I would be happy to arrange a meeting at the school where you could view the materials in person and discuss any questions you may have about the programme.
Kind regards,
Diane Woolley
Head of Safeguarding
Meridian Academy
From: Helena Prescott
To: Diane Woolley
Date: 20 November 2025
Subject: RE: RE: Request for RSHE Curriculum Materials — Year 10
Dear Mrs Woolley,
Thank you for your reply.
I am confused by this. The DfE guidance states that parents have a right to know what their children are being taught. The Education Secretary wrote to schools in 2023 specifically to “debunk the copyright myth” — her words — and to make clear that parents should be able to see RSHE materials. The revised guidance published in July 2025 strengthens this further.
I am not asking to reproduce or distribute the materials. I am asking to see what my fifteen-year-old son is being taught about sex and pornography.
I would appreciate it if you could arrange for me to receive copies of the lesson plans by email, or alternatively provide me with a link to the materials online. A meeting is difficult given my work schedule, but I am happy to arrange one if that is genuinely the only option.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Helena Prescott
From: Diane Woolley
To: Helena Prescott
Date: 28 November 2025
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Request for RSHE Curriculum Materials — Year 10
Dear Mrs Prescott,
I understand your frustration and I appreciate your persistence.
I have raised your request with the headteacher and with Illuminate Education. Unfortunately, the provider has confirmed that the materials remain commercially sensitive and that copies cannot be distributed to parents outside a supervised school setting. I am told this is standard practice across their partner schools.
I can offer you a thirty-minute appointment on 12 December at 3.30 pm to view the materials in the school library. You would be welcome to take notes, though photography or photocopying would not be permitted.
Please let me know if this is convenient.
Kind regards,
Diane Woolley
From: Helena Prescott
To: Diane Woolley
Date: 29 November 2025
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Request for RSHE Curriculum Materials — Year 10
Dear Mrs Woolley,
I work full-time. I cannot attend a thirty-minute appointment at 3.30 pm on a weekday to read materials I should be entitled to see at home.
I want to be clear about what I am being told. The Department for Education says I have the right to see these materials. The provider says I do not. My son’s school is siding with the provider.
Who is Jamie’s school accountable to — the government that funds it, or the company that sells it lesson plans?
I would like to escalate this request to the headteacher.
Helena Prescott
From: Mr Jonathan Calder, Headteacher (j.calder@meridianacademy.org.uk)
To: Helena Prescott
Date: 6 December 2025
Subject: RSHE Materials — Response to Your Request
Dear Mrs Prescott,
Mrs Woolley has shared your correspondence with me and I wanted to write to you personally.
I understand your concerns and I sympathise. We take parental engagement very seriously at Meridian Academy. However, I must balance your request against the school’s contractual obligations to our RSHE provider. Illuminate Education has confirmed that their materials are proprietary and that distribution beyond the school environment is not permitted under the terms of our agreement.
I want to assure you that the materials are appropriate, evidence-based, and aligned with the DfE’s statutory guidance. Our staff have reviewed them and are satisfied that they meet the requirements of the curriculum.
We remain happy to arrange a viewing appointment at a time that may be more convenient for you. Alternatively, I can provide you with a summary document outlining the topics covered in each module and the intended learning outcomes, which I hope may address some of your concerns.
I hope this is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Best wishes,
Jonathan Calder
Headteacher, Meridian Academy
From: Helena Prescott
To: Jonathan Calder
Date: 7 December 2025
Subject: RE: RSHE Materials — Response to Your Request
Mr Calder,
A summary is not the materials. A summary of what my son was taught about pornography is not the same as what my son was taught about pornography. I would like to see the actual slides, lesson plans, and resources.
You say your staff have reviewed the materials. Which staff? When? Under what framework? The DfE’s own research shows that 80% of schools received no RSHE training. Has Meridian Academy received training? Has Mr Hargreaves, who I understand delivers the programme, received training specific to these materials?
I am not trying to be difficult. I am trying to parent my child. The law says you should help me do that. Your provider says you should not. I would like to know which instruction you intend to follow.
Helena Prescott
From: Jonathan Calder
To: Helena Prescott
Date: 9 January 2026
Subject: RE: RE: RSHE Materials — Response to Your Request
Dear Mrs Prescott,
I apologise for the delay in responding — the Christmas holiday period has meant a longer turnaround than usual.
I have given your request careful consideration and have consulted with our legal adviser. The position remains as I described in my previous email. We are contractually unable to distribute the provider’s materials. However, I have arranged for a copy of the summary document to be sent to you under separate cover.
I appreciate your patience and your commitment to Jamie’s education.
Best wishes,
Jonathan Calder
[No further correspondence in the file. Jamie Prescott was arrested on 4 March 2026.]
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
Eight emails over eight weeks. Helena Prescott cited the DfE guidance. She cited the Education Secretary’s letter. She cited the revised 2025 guidance. She asked politely, then firmly, then with barely contained fury.
She was offered a thirty-minute appointment she could not attend, a summary document she did not want, and assurances that the materials were appropriate from a headteacher who had not reviewed them.
The UNESCO framework said: partner with parents.
The WHO framework said: engage communities.
The statutory guidance said: tell parents what is being taught.
The Education Secretary said: debunk the copyright myth.
Illuminate Education said: commercially sensitive.
The school chose the provider over the parent, the contract over the child.
I ask the court to consider what might have happened if Helena Prescott had been allowed to see the materials. She might have raised concerns. She might have discussed them with Jamie. She might have provided the context and nuance that the lesson plan did not. She might have been the adult the system failed to be.
Instead, she was locked out. And her son was left to navigate alone.
Filed as Exhibit H
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
I don’t usually include my working notes in a case file. But this case is unusual, because it is not really about Jamie Prescott. It is about a system, and systems are harder to see from the inside. So I need to map it.
What follows is my analysis of where the system broke down — not in one dramatic failure, but in a series of small, predictable, institutional collapses, each of which was reasonable in isolation and catastrophic in combination.
The international frameworks (Exhibits B and C) describe a system of sexuality education built on trained teachers, vetted materials, parental partnership, and evidence-based content. The UK statutory guidance (Exhibit D) adopted these principles. But it funded none of the structures needed to deliver them.
RSHE became compulsory in September 2020. Teacher training was not compulsory. Quality assurance was not compulsory. Parental transparency was recommended but not enforced. Material review was suggested but not required.
The government mandated the destination without building the road. And then it was surprised when people got lost.
When eighty percent of schools lack trained RSHE staff, they outsource. This is rational. The market responds. Third-party providers fill the gap. But those providers operate in a regulatory vacuum. There is no accreditation body for RSHE providers. There is no quality standard. There is no review mechanism. There is not even a list of approved providers.
Any organisation with a website and a set of slides can sell RSHE materials to schools. Many do. Some are excellent. Some are ideological operations disguised as educational resources. Schools cannot distinguish between them because they have no training, no framework, and no time.
Illuminate Education Ltd is not a bad company. It is a company operating in a space where “bad” and “good” have no institutional definition. It produced materials. It sold them. Schools bought them. No one checked.
The third-party providers discovered something useful: if you make your materials proprietary, parents cannot see them. If parents cannot see them, they cannot object. If they cannot object, you keep your contract.
This is not a conspiracy. It is a business model. The providers protect their intellectual property. Schools accept the terms because they need the materials and have no alternative. Parents are told the materials are “aligned with guidance” and offered a summary. The actual content — the slides, the discussion prompts, the homework tasks — remains invisible.
Exhibit H demonstrates the result. Helena Prescott spent eight weeks asking to see what her son was being taught about pornography. She was refused. Not by a malicious institution, but by a system that had placed commercial convenience above parental right.
The UNESCO framework calls for transparency. The market operates on opacity. The school sits between them, satisfying neither.
David Hargreaves is a geography teacher. He is fifty-three. He was assigned to RSHE because he had a free period and a reputation for rapport with students. He was given no training. He was given no framework for evaluating the materials he was asked to deliver. He was given a USB stick.
I have interviewed Mr Hargreaves. He is a decent man who did what he was told. He delivered the Illuminate Education lesson plan as written. He used the discussion prompts. He assigned the homework. He did not scrutinise the content because he had no basis for scrutiny. He is not an expert in adolescent sexual development. He is not an expert in pornography research. He is a geography teacher who was told to teach RSHE and was given forty-five minutes’ notice before his first lesson.
The system positioned him as a conduit — a pipe through which unexamined material flowed from a commercial provider to a classroom of fifteen-year-olds. He did not design the system. He did not endorse the materials. He was a component in a machine.
And now the prosecution proposes to call him as a witness against the student he was trying to serve.
This is the heart of the case.
The curriculum taught Jamie Prescott that sexuality is natural. The curriculum taught him that pornography is a common feature of modern culture. The curriculum taught him not to feel ashamed. The curriculum told him to “critically evaluate” what he encountered online. The curriculum gave him homework that directed him to research ethical pornography.
The law says that accessing pornography under the age of eighteen is prohibited. The law says that sharing sexual content, even school resources that discuss sexual content, may constitute an offence. The law says that using a VPN to circumvent age verification is a breach of the Online Safety Act.
The curriculum and the law were issued by the same government, in the same decade, and applied to the same child. They point in opposite directions. One says: learn about this. The other says: you are forbidden to know about this. One says: don’t be ashamed. The other says: you should be in court.
Jamie Prescott could not comply with both. No child can. The system created a trap and baited it with mandatory education.
This is harder to say, because it sounds like advocacy rather than analysis. But I have been a youth justice solicitor for twenty-three years and I have seen this pattern before, in different contexts, with different laws, directed at different children. The pattern is always the same.
When a system fails, someone must be blamed. The system will not blame itself. It will not blame the politicians who legislated the contradiction. It will not blame the civil servants who wrote guidance without funding. It will not blame the schools who outsourced without oversight. It will not blame the providers who sold materials without accountability. It will not blame the parents who were locked out.
It will blame the child.
It will find a child who did what the system taught him, prosecute him under the laws the system passed, and present the prosecution as evidence that the system works — that it catches offenders, that it protects children, that it takes these matters seriously.
Jamie Prescott is not an offender. He is an alibi.
The system that produced Jamie Prescott’s “crime” was not broken by any single actor. It was broken by design — by the gap between what was promised and what was funded, between what was taught and what was legal, between what parents were told and what was actually happening.
Every adult in this chain did something reasonable. The government legislated. The schools outsourced. The providers supplied. The teachers delivered. The parents were told not to worry. The police received a complaint and investigated.
And at the end of this chain of reasonable decisions, a fifteen-year-old boy is in a courtroom.
I submit that the chain itself is the crime. And I submit that this court has the power — and the obligation — to say so.
Filed as Exhibit I
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187
End of Part II: THE SOIL -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
The previous exhibits have been institutional documents — frameworks, guidance, lesson plans, emails. They are the system’s voice.
What follows is a child’s voice.
Jamie Prescott’s RSHE notebook was seized during the search of his bedroom on the day of his arrest. It is a standard A4 lined exercise book with “RSHE — Mr Hargreaves — Tues P5” written on the front cover in black marker. There is a sticker of a cartoon dinosaur on the back. He is fifteen.
I have transcribed the notes for the relevant sessions. Spelling and punctuation are as in the original. Where Jamie’s handwriting is illegible, I have indicated this with [illegible]. Doodles and marginal drawings are noted but not reproduced.
Topic: Introduction to RSHE Year 10
Mr H says this year we’re doing the “big stuff” — relationships, consent, online safety, pornography. He says we shouldn’t be embarrassed and that everything we discuss is normal and natural. He says the whole point is to give us the information we need to make good choices.
[Marginal note: “good choices = knowing stuff, not being scared of it”]
He gave us a questionnaire about what we already know. Anonymous. I put that I know what porn is (obviously??), that I know about consent, and that I want to know more about how to talk to people about sex without it being weird.
[Marginal note: “everyone was laughing but I think most of us actually want to know”]
Topic: Healthy Relationships
This was fine. Normal stuff about communication, respect, boundaries. Mr H is actually good at this bit — he told us about how in healthy relationships you can disagree without it being a fight, and how pressure isn’t the same as persuasion. Good examples.
[Marginal note: “wish they’d taught us this in Year 7 honestly”]
Topic: Consent
Tea analogy again (had this in Year 8). Mr H showed the video. Then we did scenarios. Most of it was stuff I already knew but the bit about ongoing consent was new — like how someone can say yes at first and then change their mind and that’s okay.
Also talked about age of consent. Mr H said the law is 16 but that doesn’t mean you should have sex at 16, it means you CAN. Big difference he said. Makes sense.
[Marginal note: “Amara asked what happens if you’re both 15 and Mr H went a bit red and said technically it’s illegal for both of you but the police almost never prosecute. Bit weird that something millions of people do is technically illegal??”]
Topic: Pornography — Module 7
Okay so this was the big one. Mr H was nervous I think. He kept saying “this is just information” and “there’s no judgement here.”
We did a Myth or Fact quiz. One of the facts was that most adults watch porn. Mr H said 70-80%. That’s basically everyone?? He said watching porn doesn’t make you a bad person and that it’s about entertainment not education. Like action films he said.
Then we did a thing called the Pornography Spectrum. It had categories — mainstream, niche, feminist, extreme. Mr H went through them really fast. He said extreme/illegal stuff is always wrong and always harmful. The rest he said is about personal choice.
Then we had discussion cards. Our group got the one about someone finding that porn helped them understand their sexuality. We were supposed to discuss whether that’s valid. Our group said yes because how else are you supposed to figure stuff out if no one will tell you?? Mr H said that was a “thoughtful answer.”
Homework: research an organisation that campaigns for ethical pornography. Write a paragraph about their aims.
[Marginal note: “so are we supposed to look this up or not?? Mr H says learn about it. Mum’s filter blocks it. School says it’s normal. Law says I can’t see it. ???”]
[Marginal note in different pen, added later: “did the homework. Found a site called [redacted]. Actually really interesting. They talk about consent on set, fair pay, performer wellbeing. This is what they should be teaching us about. Not the stupid spectrum thing.”]
Topic: Online Safety and Sexting
Mr H showed us statistics about young people sharing images. He said even if you’re both under 18 and both consenting, sharing a sexual image is technically illegal because you’re creating and distributing an indecent image of a child — even if the child is you.
[Marginal note: “WAIT. So if I take a photo of myself that’s ME creating child porn of MYSELF?? That is the stupidest law I’ve ever heard”]
He also talked about revenge porn and image-based abuse. That bit was good and important. And about how if someone pressures you to send an image, that’s coercion.
Then he talked about VPNs. He said that using a VPN to get around age verification is technically breaking the law under the Online Safety Act. Someone asked “but doesn’t everyone use VPNs?” and Mr H said “I’m not going to answer that” and everyone laughed.
[Marginal note: “literally half the school uses a VPN to get on TikTok since the age check thing. Are we all criminals now?”]
Topic: The Media and Sexuality
This was more about advertising and social media than porn specifically. How bodies are edited, how comparison can be harmful, how social media can affect self-esteem. Standard stuff but Mr H made it quite good with examples from actual Instagram accounts (he must have done some prep for this one).
The DLA slides I found on the school drive a few weeks ago had a section about media representation too. Compared them with what Mr H was saying — quite different tone.
[Marginal note: “the slides say porn is ‘fun to watch and enjoyable.’ Mr H didn’t say that in class. But it’s on the school system so it must be okay??”]
No notes. Jamie writes: “sub teacher. Did a worksheet. Boring.”]
Topic: Healthy Sexual Relationships
Mr H talked about how to know when you’re ready for a sexual relationship. Communication, trust, feeling comfortable, not being pressured. He said sex should be something both people want and enjoy and that there should be no shame about wanting it or not wanting it.
He also said — and I think this is the most useful thing he’s said all term — that the internet will tell you a lot about the mechanics of sex but almost nothing about the emotional bit. And the emotional bit is what actually matters.
[Marginal note: “this is what the whole course should be. Why is this one lesson out of twelve?”]
END OF TRANSCRIBED NOTES
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
I ask the court to read Jamie’s marginal notes carefully. They are the notes of a child trying to make sense of contradictory instructions from the adult world.
“So are we supposed to look this up or not?”
“The slides say porn is ‘fun to watch.’ Mr H didn’t say that in class. But it’s on the school system so it must be okay?”
“Literally half the school uses a VPN. Are we all criminals now?”
“If I take a photo of myself that’s ME creating child porn of MYSELF?”
These are not the notes of a delinquent. They are the notes of a student paying attention. He listened to the lessons. He did the homework. He questioned the contradictions. He shared resources with classmates. He is, in every meaningful sense, a good student.
The system taught him that pornography is normal. He accepted the teaching.
The system taught him to research ethically. He researched.
The system put resources on its own platform. He found them and shared them.
The system told him that VPN use is “technically” illegal. He noted that everyone does it.
He is not here because he did something wrong. He is here because the system could not decide whether what it was teaching was right or criminal, and defaulted to prosecuting the child rather than resolving the question.
Filed as Exhibit J
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
“Room 4B Revision” is a WhatsApp group created by Jamie Prescott on 12 September 2025. It has nine members, all Year 10 students at Meridian Academy. Its stated purpose — visible in the group description — is “RSHE revision + general school stuff.” The group also discusses homework, football, video games, and what is available in the canteen.
The prosecution has extracted 147 messages from this group that it considers relevant. I have selected those that demonstrate how the curriculum’s messages were received and processed by the students. Names other than Jamie’s have been replaced with first-name initials. Where messages contain emoji, these are rendered in text description.
Jamie: did anyone else think that lesson was weird
A: SO weird
Jamie: like he literally told us porn is fine but also illegal for us to watch??
R: myth or fact: mr h is scared of the word penis [crying laughing emoji]
S: the homework tho. we have to research ETHICAL PORN?? for SCHOOL??
Jamie: yeah I was confused about that too. are we supposed to actually look at the sites or just read about them
A: I think just read articles? like their about pages and stuff
Jamie: okay I found one that’s really detailed about how they do consent on set. sharing the link
A: cool thanks
S: imagine your mum finding “ethical pornography research” in your browser history and you have to say “no mum it’s homework” [skull emoji]
R: [crying laughing emoji x3]
Jamie: honestly tho the consent stuff is interesting. like way more useful than the spectrum thing
Jamie: also found this on the school drive. DLA slides about porn
Jamie: [link to Meridian Academy learning platform resource]
A: wait this is on the school system??
Jamie: yeah in the RSHE resources folder. more detailed than what Mr H showed us
S: slide 6 compares porn to cake [crying laughing emoji]
A: “consider ethical sources” — sources for what exactly? we’re 15
Jamie: EXACTLY what I wrote in my notes
R: the slides say porn is “fun to watch.” Mr H definitely did not say that
Jamie: right?? but it’s on the school system so presumably someone approved it
A: “presumably” doing a LOT of heavy lifting there
Jamie: okay so today Mr H said using a VPN to bypass age verification is illegal
S: lol
R: literally everyone uses a VPN
A: my dad set mine up FOR me so I could watch BBC iplayer when we were in Spain
Jamie: also he said if you take a photo of yourself you’re technically making child porn of yourself
S: THE LAW IS SO STUPID
Jamie: no but think about it. the law literally criminalises you for existing. you have a body. your body is “indecent.” taking a photo of your own body is a crime
A: that’s actually a really good point
R: philosophy Jamie strikes again
Jamie: no but seriously. the lesson says “your body is natural and nothing to be ashamed of” and the law says “your body is indecent material.” how is that the same country
A: it’s not the same country. it’s two different countries pretending to be one
Jamie: [100 emoji]
Jamie: found this video from SafeSpace UK on the school resource list. about porn
Jamie: [link]
S: oh I’ve seen this. it’s actually good
A: wait it lists BDSM as a category?? for a kids’ charity??
Jamie: I mean they’re saying these categories EXIST not that we should watch them
A: bit of a fine line
Jamie: is it tho? like would you rather know or not know? the whole point of RSHE is supposed to be information
R: yeah but information about what BDSM is at 15 is different from information about like consent and healthy relationships
Jamie: fair. but then why is it on the school resource list
A: because no one checks the school resource list
Jamie: which is kind of the problem with everything isn’t it
S: my sister goes to a school in France and she says they don’t have any of this drama. they just teach it properly from like age 12 and everyone’s fine
Jamie: yeah the Netherlands too apparently. Mr H mentioned it once. they’ve been doing it for 30 years and their stats are way better than ours
A: imagine living in a country that just tells you the truth and doesn’t make it weird
R: we live in a country that teaches you about porn and then arrests you for watching it. what did you expect
Jamie: so my mum tried to get copies of the lesson materials and the school said no
A: WHAT
Jamie: yeah they said the materials are “commercially sensitive.” intellectual property
S: that’s insane. the stuff they TEACH US is secret from our PARENTS?
Jamie: my mum is not happy. she’s been emailing them for a week
A: my mum doesn’t even know what RSHE is
R: my parents think school teaches us about periods and that’s it
Jamie: I mean that IS part of it but then there’s also “research ethical pornography” for homework and a video saying porn is fun
S: when you put it like that it does sound a bit mad
Jamie: it’s not mad it’s just inconsistent. like they want us to be educated but they also want us to not know things. they want parents involved but they won’t show parents the materials. they want us to think critically but only in the directions they approve of
A: philosophy Jamie [brain emoji]
Jamie: shut up. I just pay attention
Jamie: VPN question. does anyone know if NordVPN works with the school wifi
R: yeah it does. use the obfuscated servers
S: why do you need it at school
Jamie: age verification thing on the BBC science page. it keeps asking me to verify my age to read an article about adolescent health
R: yeah the filter is broken. it flags anything with the word “sexual” in it now
Jamie: so I can’t read a BBC article about puberty without a VPN. in a school that teaches me about pornography categories. in a country where I can be arrested for using the VPN
A: [clown emoji]
Jamie: [clown emoji]
R: [clown emoji]
S: [clown emoji]
END OF SELECTED MESSAGES
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
The prosecution has characterised this group chat as evidence of coordinated criminal activity — specifically, the distribution of indecent material (the DLA slides link, the SafeSpace video link) and conspiracy to circumvent age verification (the VPN discussion).
I characterise it as teenagers talking about school.
Jamie shares a link to a resource on the school’s own learning platform. Amara asks “wait this is on the school system?” and Jamie confirms that it is. The prosecution calls this distribution. I call it a student pointing his classmates to a school resource.
Jamie shares the SafeSpace video. It was produced by a children’s charity, funded by the DfE, and listed on the school’s recommended resource page. The prosecution calls this distribution of indecent material. I call it a student sharing an educational resource.
The VPN discussion concerns accessing a BBC science article that was incorrectly flagged by the school’s content filter. The prosecution presents it as evidence of intent to circumvent age verification. I present it as evidence that the school’s own filtering system prevented a student from reading age-appropriate health content on a public broadcaster’s website.
These children are doing what the curriculum told them to do. They are discussing what they learned. They are sharing resources. They are questioning contradictions. They are thinking critically. The prosecution’s evidence bundle is, in fact, a documentation of successful education.
The system taught them to think. And now it is prosecuting the one who thought the hardest.
Filed as Exhibit K
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
The prosecution’s digital evidence is extensive. DC Linton’s full report runs to sixty-three pages. I submit below a summary of the key findings and my analysis of each.
NordVPN was installed on both devices. The laptop shows installation on 14 September 2025. The phone shows installation on 22 September 2025. Usage logs indicate regular VPN activation, averaging four to five sessions per week, with sessions lasting between fifteen minutes and three hours.
Prosecution’s interpretation: Deliberate circumvention of age verification requirements under the Online Safety Act 2023.
Defense response: NordVPN is a legal product, available for purchase by anyone, including minors. It is used by millions of UK residents for privacy, security, and accessing geo-restricted content. Jamie’s VPN was initially installed — per his statement and confirmed by his mother — to access educational content on international websites that were blocked by the school’s content filter or by geo-restriction.
DC Linton’s report notes that VPN usage was not limited to accessing age-restricted content. The logs show VPN activation during access to YouTube, Reddit, BBC iPlayer, the New York Times, and several educational platforms. The prosecution has selected from the logs only those sessions that coincide with access to age-restricted sites, presenting a partial picture.
More importantly: following the implementation of age verification under the Online Safety Act, VPN downloads in the UK rose significantly. Jamie is not an outlier. He is a statistic.
DC Linton identifies seventeen instances of access to websites classified as containing pornographic content, spread across the period October 2025 to February 2026.
Five are visits to Reddit threads discussing pornography, media literacy, and the Online Safety Act
Prosecution’s interpretation: A sustained pattern of accessing and engaging with pornographic content in breach of age verification requirements.
Defense response: The prosecution counts seventeen instances over five months. Approximately one instance per week. Three of those were homework. Two were a children’s charity video listed on the school’s resource page. Three were educational articles. Five were discussion forums.
That leaves four visits to mainstream pornographic sites over five months. Four. For a fifteen-year-old boy who had been taught by his school that pornography is normal, that curiosity is healthy, and that critical engagement is the appropriate response.
The average UK teenager encounters pornography for the first time at age thirteen. Twenty-seven percent have encountered it by age eleven. Ten percent by age nine. Jamie Prescott was fifteen when the relevant period began, and his usage was minimal by any statistical measure.
The prosecution asks the court to treat four website visits as criminal. I ask the court to treat them as predictable.
A note at the bottom that reads: “this is not for anything dodgy. it’s for getting past the stupid school filter that blocks BBC articles about puberty. but also it works for everything else [shrug emoji]”
Prosecution’s interpretation: Distribution of tools designed to facilitate circumvention of age verification requirements. This is the charge under the Online Safety Act 2023.
Defense response: Jamie Prescott wrote a guide explaining how to use a legal product. The guide explicitly states its primary purpose is accessing educational content blocked by an over-zealous school filter. The caveat “but also it works for everything else” is the statement of a teenager who understands that VPNs are general-purpose privacy tools — which they are.
The Online Safety Act 2023 makes it an offence to circumvent age verification measures. It does not, explicitly, make it an offence to explain how VPNs work. If it did, every technology website, every cybersecurity course, and every IT textbook in the country would be an accessory.
Jamie wrote a four-hundred-word guide to using a legal product and shared it with eight friends. The prosecution charges this as a criminal act. I submit that it is indistinguishable from what any technically competent teenager would do — and indeed, from what many parents and teachers do.
On 14 January 2026, Jamie Prescott shared a meme in the Room 4B group chat. The meme was a screenshot from a mainstream pornographic website, with a humorous caption superimposed, depicting two fully clothed performers in an obviously staged “plumber” scenario. The image was not sexually explicit. It was a screenshot of a title page, not of pornographic content. It was shared as a joke about the absurdity of pornographic narratives — a direct application of the media literacy the curriculum had tried to teach.
Prosecution’s interpretation: Distribution of indecent material under the Protection of Children Act 1978, s.1(1)(a).
Defense response: The image contains no nudity, no sexual activity, and no indecent content. It is a screenshot of a website title. The prosecution’s characterisation of this as “indecent material” rests on the fact that the website from which the screenshot was taken is a pornographic site — not that the screenshot itself is indecent.
If a student took a screenshot of the Netflix homepage showing a film rated 18, would that be distribution of adult material? The logic is identical.
Jamie shared a joke. It was a media-literate joke. It was a joke about the gap between pornographic fantasy and reality — precisely the gap his curriculum told him to recognise.
He is now being charged for demonstrating what he was taught.
The prosecution’s digital evidence, stripped of its forensic presentation, amounts to this:
A fifteen-year-old boy installed a legal privacy tool. He used it primarily for educational purposes, occasionally for entertainment, and once to access content that his curriculum told him was normal. He wrote a guide to using the tool and shared it with friends. He shared a non-explicit meme. He researched his homework.
This is the criminal case.
Filed as Exhibit L
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
Every school in England is required to maintain a safeguarding log — a chronological record of concerns about pupils’ welfare. These logs are confidential. They are disclosed to the defense under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 where relevant to the case.
Meridian Academy’s safeguarding log contains 312 entries for the 2025–2026 academic year. Thirteen relate to Jamie Prescott. I reproduce them below in full.
Reporting staff member: Mr D. Hargreaves
Pupil: Jamie Prescott, Year 10
Category: General concern
Details: Jamie raised questions during RSHE Session 4 (pornography module) about the contradiction between curriculum content and the law. Specifically, he asked why the lesson encouraged research into pornographic content while the law prohibited him from viewing it. His questions were articulate and showed genuine engagement with the material. No safeguarding concern at this stage. Noted for reference.
Action taken: None. Logged for completeness.
Signed: D. Woolley, DSL
Reporting staff member: Mr D. Hargreaves
Pupil: Jamie Prescott, Year 10
Category: General concern
Details: During RSHE Session 5 (online safety), Jamie questioned the logic of a law that criminalises a minor for possessing an image of their own body. He described this as “the stupidest law I’ve ever heard.” Other students agreed. Discussion became animated but remained respectful. No safeguarding concern. Jamie appears to be processing the material thoughtfully.
Action taken: None.
Signed: D. Woolley, DSL
Reporting staff member: Mrs D. Woolley (self-referral)
Pupil: Jamie Prescott, Year 10 (via parent)
Category: Parental concern
Details: Helena Prescott (Jamie’s mother) has submitted multiple requests for RSHE curriculum materials. See correspondence file. Mrs Prescott appears increasingly frustrated by the school’s inability to share materials. No concern about Jamie’s welfare at this stage. Parent engagement noted.
Action taken: Referred to headteacher.
Signed: D. Woolley, DSL
Reporting staff member: IT Department (automated flag)
Pupil: Jamie Prescott, Year 10
Category: Online safety
Details: School network monitoring flagged Jamie’s device for VPN usage during school hours. VPN use is not prohibited by school policy but is flagged automatically. Logs indicate he was attempting to access a BBC article about adolescent health that had been blocked by the content filter.
Action taken: IT informed that no further action required. Content filter reviewed — BBC health content should not be blocked. Filter settings adjusted.
Signed: D. Woolley, DSL
Reporting staff member: IT Department (automated flag)
Pupil: Jamie Prescott, Year 10
Category: Online safety
Details: Second VPN flag. This time during lunch break. Unable to determine which sites were accessed due to VPN encryption.
Action taken: Spoke with Jamie informally. He explained he uses the VPN “for everything” because “the filter blocks loads of normal stuff.” I reminded him that the school prefers students not to use VPNs on the school network but acknowledged the filter is imperfect. Jamie was cooperative and polite.
Signed: D. Woolley, DSL
Reporting staff member: Mr D. Hargreaves
Pupil: Jamie Prescott, Year 10
Category: Low-level concern
Details: Another Year 10 student (not named here) reported to Mr Hargreaves that Jamie had shared “a funny porn thing” in a group chat. Mr Hargreaves asked the student what the image showed. The student described a “screenshot of a porn website title with a joke written on it — no actual porn.” Mr Hargreaves noted this but judged it to be a typical adolescent social interaction rather than a safeguarding concern.
Action taken: No immediate action. Noted in log.
Signed: D. Woolley, DSL
Reporting staff member: Mrs D. Woolley (self-referral)
Pupil: Jamie Prescott, Year 10
Category: Cumulative concern
Details: Reviewing Jamie’s entries, I note a pattern of engagement with RSHE content that goes beyond typical student interest — multiple questions in class, active sharing of resources in study groups, VPN usage, and the meme incident. Individually, none of these is a safeguarding concern. Cumulatively, they suggest a student who is processing the RSHE curriculum material more actively than most.
I want to record my own observation that this pattern is entirely consistent with a bright, curious student engaging with his education. If Jamie were doing this with geography or history, we would call it intellectual engagement. Because the subject is sex, we are logging it in a safeguarding file.
I am uncomfortable with this, but I am following protocol.
Action taken: Monitoring. No further action at this stage.
Signed: D. Woolley, DSL
Reporting staff member: Parent (Helena Prescott, via email)
Pupil: Jamie Prescott, Year 10
Category: Parental concern
Details: Mrs Prescott has written again, this time expressing concern that Jamie has been “doing research about pornography for homework.” She states that she was unable to review the materials before this homework was assigned because the school refused to share them. She asks whether the school considers it appropriate to assign homework that directs 15-year-olds to research pornography.
Action taken: Headteacher to respond. I have noted in the correspondence file that Mrs Prescott’s concerns appear well-founded. The homework task in question (Module 7, Illuminate Education) does direct students to research ethical pornography organisations. I have raised this with Mr Hargreaves, who confirmed he assigned the homework as written in the lesson plan, without modification.
Signed: D. Woolley, DSL
Reporting staff member: Mrs D. Woolley (self-referral)
Pupil: Jamie Prescott, Year 10
Category: Information
Details: Mrs Prescott has not received a response to her 3 February email. Headteacher is aware. No response has been sent. I have followed up with Mr Calder, who says he is “considering the matter.”
Action taken: Awaiting headteacher response.
Signed: D. Woolley, DSL
Reporting staff member: Mrs D. Woolley (self-referral)
Pupil: Jamie Prescott, Year 10
Category: External referral received
Details: Received telephone call from PC Williams, Neighbourhood Policing Team. Reports that a parent (not Mrs Prescott — name withheld) has contacted police regarding images shared in a school group chat. The parent states their child received “pornographic content” from another student. PC Williams asks whether the school has any concerns.
I informed PC Williams that we have a low-level safeguarding entry regarding a meme shared in a group chat (Entry 6) but that the reporting teacher had not considered it a safeguarding concern. I described the image as a screenshot of a website title with a joke caption, containing no nudity or sexual content.
PC Williams thanked me and said he would note this. I asked whether the matter would be taken further. He said that under current guidance, any report involving potential distribution of sexual material by or to minors must be investigated.
Action taken: Logged. Informed headteacher.
Signed: D. Woolley, DSL
Reporting staff member: Mrs D. Woolley (self-referral)
Pupil: Jamie Prescott, Year 10
Category: Police involvement
Details: Jamie Prescott was arrested at his home this morning. His mother telephoned the school at 9.15 am. She was distressed. She informed me that police arrived at 7.30 am, searched Jamie’s bedroom, and seized his laptop, phone, and school notebook. He was taken to the police station. She asked whether the school knew this was going to happen. I said no.
I have reviewed the safeguarding file. Nothing in this file constitutes a basis for criminal investigation. A teacher reported that Jamie asked intelligent questions. An IT flag showed he used a VPN to read a BBC article. A student reported a meme with no sexual content. A parent asked to see curriculum materials and was refused.
I am logging this because I want it on record that at no point did any member of Meridian Academy’s staff identify Jamie Prescott as a safeguarding risk. At no point did any member of staff recommend external referral. The police investigation originated from an external complaint, not from any concern raised by this school.
Jamie Prescott is a good student. He was engaged in his education. He did his homework. He asked questions.
I do not understand how we arrived here.
Action taken: Informed headteacher. Requested staff briefing. Contacted Helena Prescott to offer support.
Signed: D. Woolley, DSL
[Two further entries dated 5 and 7 March 2026, concerning administrative matters related to Jamie’s absence from school and the school’s statement to police. Not reproduced here as they contain no substantive safeguarding content.]
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
I draw the court’s attention to Entry 7, in which Diane Woolley — the person responsible for safeguarding children at Meridian Academy — writes: “If Jamie were doing this with geography or history, we would call it intellectual engagement. Because the subject is sex, we are logging it in a safeguarding file. I am uncomfortable with this, but I am following protocol.”
And to Entry 11, in which she writes: “I do not understand how we arrived here.”
Diane Woolley is a competent professional. She followed every protocol. She logged every concern. She escalated appropriately. She adjusted the content filter when it was wrong. She spoke to Jamie when VPN flags were raised and found a cooperative, polite student. She identified the homework as potentially inappropriate. She chased the headteacher for a response to Helena Prescott’s email.
She did everything right. The system still failed.
That is the point. The system does not fail because individuals are negligent. It fails because the system itself is contradictory. The protocols that Diane Woolley followed were designed for a world in which safeguarding concerns and educational content are distinct categories. In Jamie’s case, they are the same category. The education IS the concern. The concern IS the education.
Mrs Woolley’s safeguarding file is, in its entirety, a record of a system trying to safeguard a child from his own curriculum.
Filed as Exhibit M
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187
End of Part III: THE FRUIT -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
Jamie Prescott faces three categories of charge, drawn from three separate statutes passed across three decades. None of them was drafted with a child like Jamie in mind. All of them are being applied to him.
“It is an offence for a person to take, or permit to be taken, or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child.”
Application to Jamie: The prosecution charges that by sharing a screenshot from a pornographic website in a group chat, Jamie “distributed” an indecent image. The screenshot itself contains no nudity and no sexual content. It is a title page with a joke caption. But the prosecution argues that the context — a pornographic website — renders the screenshot indecent by association.
Defense analysis: The Protection of Children Act was designed to combat child sexual exploitation. It was designed to protect children, not to prosecute them. Its application to a non-explicit screenshot shared between peers in a school chat group represents a grotesque expansion of its intended scope.
The Act was passed in 1978 — before the internet, before smartphones, before social media, before the digital environment in which every teenager lives. Its language does not contemplate the reality of 2026, in which millions of under-eighteens encounter sexual material daily, in which schools teach about pornography as part of the statutory curriculum, and in which sharing a screenshot is a standard social interaction.
“It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.”
Application to Jamie: DC Linton’s forensic examination identified cached images on Jamie’s laptop from one of the four mainstream pornographic sites he visited. The prosecution argues that certain cached images meet the threshold for “extreme pornographic” content.
Defense analysis: The images in question were cached automatically by Jamie’s browser. He did not download them deliberately. He did not save them. He may not have viewed them. Browser caching is an automated technical process that stores copies of web content on a device’s hard drive to improve loading speeds. Every website Jamie visited — including the BBC, YouTube, and Wikipedia — also deposited cached files on his laptop.
The prosecution is charging a fifteen-year-old with possession of material his computer stored automatically, during visits that lasted — per DC Linton’s own logs — between two and seven minutes per session.
Furthermore, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was designed to address the possession of material depicting acts that are life-threatening, involve serious injury, or involve non-consensual penetration. Its application to automatically cached content on a teenager’s laptop stretches the statute past its purpose and into absurdity.
Provisions requiring regulated services to implement age verification measures, with corresponding offences for deliberate circumvention.
Application to Jamie: Jamie used NordVPN to access various websites, including — on four occasions over five months — mainstream pornographic sites that had implemented age verification as required under the Act. The prosecution charges that this use of a VPN constituted deliberate circumvention.
Defense analysis: The Online Safety Act 2023 received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023. Age verification requirements for pornographic sites were phased in from July 2025. The Act places the primary duty on service providers to implement verification. The offence provisions relating to circumvention are directed at those who provide tools or services specifically designed to defeat age verification systems.
The Act does not, in its primary text, create a specific criminal offence for an individual user who employs a VPN. The prosecution relies on a secondary interpretation that using a VPN to bypass verification constitutes an offence under the general provisions regarding access to prohibited content.
This interpretation, if accepted, would criminalise the estimated fifteen to twenty percent of UK internet users who currently employ VPNs. It would criminalise the father who set up a VPN for his daughter to watch BBC iPlayer from Spain. It would criminalise every cybersecurity professional, every journalist protecting a source, every domestic abuse survivor maintaining online privacy.
VPNs are legal products. They are sold openly. They are recommended by the National Cyber Security Centre for privacy protection. The prosecution’s attempt to recharacterise their use as criminal conduct is legally unsound and practically absurd.
Each statute individually is defensible — or was, when it was drafted. The Protection of Children Act protects children from exploitation. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act addresses extreme material. The Online Safety Act addresses the responsibility of platforms to verify users’ ages.
A student who used a legal tool to access a legal product in a manner consistent with his education
He is being prosecuted under three laws from three eras, none of which contemplated the situation they are now being applied to, all of which are being stretched beyond recognition to construct a case against a fifteen-year-old boy who did his homework.
The defense notes that the United Kingdom is not alone in this legislative confusion. Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, effective from December 2025, imposes age verification requirements for social media platforms. When challenged on the effectiveness of these measures, the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, claimed that VPNs cost “thousands of dollars” — a claim contradicted by a five-second internet search revealing prices of approximately fifteen to twenty Australian dollars per month.
The legislative class appears to believe that prohibition functions as prevention. History suggests otherwise. Every prohibited substance, every censored text, every banned technology has found its audience through the simple mechanism of demand and supply. The VPN market exists because the demand exists. The demand exists because the internet exists. The internet is not going away. Neither are teenagers.
Filed as Exhibit N
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
I submit the following composite extracts from parliamentary debate to demonstrate the legislative mindset that produced the laws under which Jamie Prescott is charged. These are not verbatim transcriptions. They are representative summaries of the positions expressed by members across the political spectrum during debates on the Online Safety Act 2023 and subsequent age verification measures. I have replaced individual names to avoid distraction; the positions are archetypal and well-documented in the public record.
Member for Hartland South (Government Backbench): The internet is the Wild West, and our children are the ones being shot. We would not allow a child to walk into an adult shop and purchase pornography. We should not allow them to access it on their phones. Age verification is not censorship — it is parenting, by a state that cares about its children.
Member for Islington East (Opposition): We share the concern. But I ask the Minister — has any assessment been made of whether children will simply use VPNs to bypass these measures? Because if they do — and they will — the legislation achieves nothing except the creation of a new class of criminal: children.
The Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: The honourable member raises a fair point, and I want to be clear. This legislation is aimed at platforms, not at children. The duty falls on providers to implement verification. We are not seeking to criminalise young people for being curious.
Member for Breckenham West: I’m troubled by the enforcement architecture. We’re telling platforms to verify age. Platforms implement verification. Children use VPNs — which are legal, widely available, and cost less than a Netflix subscription. Then what? Do we prosecute the children? Do we ban VPNs? Neither option is palatable and neither is effective.
The Minister: VPNs are a matter of individual choice. The legislation does not ban VPNs. What it does is create a normative framework — a statement that access to pornography by minors is not acceptable and that society expects platforms to prevent it.
Member for Breckenham West: A normative framework. I see. So the legislation is symbolic.
The Minister: It is aspirational.
Member for Breckenham West: Aspirational legislation that cannot be enforced is not law. It is a press release.
Baroness Hartington: My Lords, I have three grandchildren under the age of sixteen. All of them use VPNs. I asked them why. They said, and I quote, “Because the internet is stupid without one.” They are not criminals. They are children navigating a digital environment that we — the adults — designed, deployed, profited from, and are now panicking about.
If we wish to protect children from pornography, we should start by not teaching them about it in school using materials produced by organisations whose mission is to normalise it. And if we have already taught them about it, we should not then prosecute them for knowing about it.
Lord Ashbury: The noble Baroness makes a powerful point. But does she accept that some regulation is necessary? That a world in which any nine-year-old can access extreme pornographic content with no barrier whatsoever is not one we should defend?
Baroness Hartington: I accept that entirely. I am arguing not against regulation but against the pretence that regulation without enforcement is protection. What we have built is a Potemkin wall — impressive from the front, nothing from behind. And the children are behind it.
Member for Penistone (Government Backbench): Mr Speaker, graphic lessons on oral sex. Instructions on how to choke your partner safely. And seventy-two genders. This is what passes for relationships and sex education in British schools. Across the country, children are being subjected to lessons that are age-inappropriate, extreme, sexualising, and inaccurate, often delivered by unregulated organisations that are actively campaigning to undermine parents.
Member for Lewisham South (Opposition): Will the honourable member accept that the solution to bad sex education is better sex education, not less sex education? The evidence from every comparable country shows that comprehensive, well-delivered sexuality education reduces harm. The problem is not the curriculum — it is the implementation.
Member for Penistone: I agree that implementation is a problem. But when the implementation includes telling children that porn is “fun to watch” and asking fifteen-year-olds to research ethical pornography for homework, perhaps the content deserves scrutiny too.
The Speaker: Order. I remind Members that the question before the House is the matter of the review, not the content of specific lesson plans.
Member for Central Nottingham (Opposition): The Minister will be aware of reports that a fifteen-year-old boy has been charged under the Online Safety Act and the Protection of Children Act for sharing school RSHE resources with classmates and using a VPN. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government considers this an appropriate use of prosecutorial discretion?
The Minister for Schools: I thank the honourable member for his question. I cannot comment on an individual case that is before the courts. But I want to be clear: this government’s priority is the safety and wellbeing of children. We expect the CPS to exercise prosecutorial discretion appropriately in all cases involving minors.
Member for Central Nottingham: Prosecutorial discretion. The Minister uses those words as though they are an answer. They are not. A child is in court for doing his homework. This government taught him about pornography and arrested him for learning about it. If the Minister cannot see the contradiction, the Minister is the contradiction.
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
I submit these extracts not because Parliament is on trial — though it might be — but because they demonstrate that the contradictions at the heart of this case were identified, debated, and left unresolved by the very body that created them.
Members of Parliament knew that VPNs would defeat age verification. They legislated anyway. Members of Parliament knew that the RSHE curriculum was inconsistent with the Online Safety Act. They funded neither the review nor the reform. Members of Parliament knew that prosecutorial discretion would be the only mechanism preventing the criminalisation of ordinary teenagers. They placed that burden on police officers and Crown prosecutors rather than resolving the contradiction themselves.
Jamie Prescott fell through the gap that Parliament chose to leave open. His prosecution is not a failure of the system. It is the system working exactly as designed — poorly, contradictorily, and at the expense of the people it claims to protect.
Filed as Exhibit O
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
RESTRICTED — DISCLOSED UNDER CPIA 1996
Date of incident: 4 March 2026
Time: 07:32 GMT
Location: [Address redacted], London SE15
Reporting Officer: PC Daniel Williams, Collar Number 4471
Supervising Officer: DS Rebecca Moran
On 27 February 2026, a complaint was received from the parent of a minor (Complainant A, name withheld) alleging that their child had received pornographic material via a WhatsApp group chat from another minor, later identified as Jamie Alexander PRESCOTT, DOB [redacted], age 15 years.
Complainant A stated that their child had shown them a screenshot of a message in which PRESCOTT had shared a link to pornographic website content and a meme image depicting pornographic material. Complainant A stated that their child was “upset and disturbed” by the content.
A preliminary investigation was conducted by DC Sarah Linton, Cyber Crime Unit, in consultation with the Youth Offending Team. Enquiries with Meridian Academy (Designated Safeguarding Lead, Mrs D. Woolley) established that a low-level concern had been logged regarding the meme image (school safeguarding log Entry 6, dated 15 January 2026). Mrs Woolley stated that the reporting teacher had not considered the image a safeguarding concern and described it as a “screenshot of a website title with a joke caption, containing no nudity or sexual content.”
Online Safety Act 2023, s.185 (as interpreted) — circumvention of age verification measures
At 07:32 on 4 March 2026, PC Williams and PC Okafor attended the home address of Jamie PRESCOTT. The door was answered by Helena PRESCOTT (mother). Officers identified themselves and explained the purpose of their visit.
Mrs PRESCOTT appeared confused and asked what her son had done. Officers explained that they were investigating allegations of distribution of indecent material and possession of extreme pornographic content. Mrs PRESCOTT became distressed and stated: “He’s fifteen. He was doing his homework.”
Jamie PRESCOTT was present in the kitchen, eating breakfast. He was wearing school uniform. Officers informed him that he was being arrested on suspicion of offences under the above-mentioned statutes. The standard caution was administered.
PRESCOTT appeared confused and asked: “Is this about the meme?” He was cooperative throughout.
One printed document found on desk: “VPN Guide for 4B” (one A4 page, handwritten notes on reverse)
No other items of relevance were found. The bedroom contained school textbooks, a guitar, posters of Arsenal Football Club and a Japanese animation series, and a terrarium housing a bearded dragon named Gerald.
PRESCOTT was transported to [Police Station redacted] custody suite, arriving at 08:15. He was booked in by Custody Sergeant Hayes. An Appropriate Adult was contacted (Mrs PRESCOTT, who had followed in her own vehicle). PRESCOTT was assessed as low-risk and placed in a juvenile holding area.
Upon arrival, PRESCOTT asked whether he could let the school know he would be absent. He also asked whether someone could feed Gerald.
Interview commenced at 10:45. Present: Jamie PRESCOTT, Helena PRESCOTT (Appropriate Adult), Duty Solicitor (Ms K. Ogunyemi), DC S. Linton, PC D. Williams.
When asked whether he knew it was illegal for under-18s to access pornography, stated: “Yes, Mr Hargreaves told us. He also told us it was normal and nothing to be ashamed of. I don’t understand how it can be both.”
At this point, Mrs PRESCOTT interjected: “I asked the school to show me the materials. They refused. Eight emails. They said it was commercially sensitive. Now my son is in a police station because of materials I wasn’t allowed to see.”
DC Linton terminated the interview at 11:32.
PRESCOTT was released on bail at 12:15, pending CPS charging decision. Bail conditions: no contact with Complainant A’s child; no use of VPN software; no access to social media; surrender of passport (not applicable — PRESCOTT does not hold a passport).
PRESCOTT was visibly upset upon leaving the station. Mrs PRESCOTT asked to make a formal complaint about the arrest. She was provided with the appropriate form.
Filed by: PC Daniel Williams, 4471
Countersigned: DS Rebecca Moran
Date: 4 March 2026
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
Gerald is fine. A neighbour fed him.
I include that detail because the court should know who it is prosecuting. It is prosecuting a fifteen-year-old boy who eats breakfast in his school uniform, plays guitar, keeps a bearded dragon, and asked the police whether someone could feed his pet. He turned down his solicitor’s advice to stay silent because he had nothing to hide.
He answered every question honestly. He explained that he did his homework. He said he was curious. He said the lesson told him it was normal. He said he didn’t understand how something could be normal and illegal at the same time.
“I don’t understand how it can be both.”
Neither do I. And I have been practising law for twenty-three years.
Filed as Exhibit P
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
RESTRICTED — DISCLOSED UNDER CPIA 1996
Date of Decision: 18 March 2026
Suspect: Jamie Alexander PRESCOTT, DOB [redacted], Age 15
Victim(s): Not applicable (no identified victim in the conventional sense)
Referring Officer: DS Rebecca Moran, Neighbourhood Policing Team
Is there a realistic prospect of conviction?
Having reviewed the evidence bundle submitted by DC Linton, including digital forensics, WhatsApp transcripts, school safeguarding logs, and the defendant’s interview, I have considered the following:
Count 1 — Distribution of indecent image, Protection of Children Act 1978, s.1(1)(a):
The image shared by PRESCOTT in the WhatsApp group is a screenshot of a pornographic website’s title page. It depicts two fully clothed individuals in a staged scenario. It contains no nudity and no sexual activity. Whether it meets the threshold for “indecent” as defined by the Act is a matter of judicial interpretation. There is a realistic prospect that a court would find the image indecent by contextual association with the originating website, though this is not certain.
Count 2 — Possession of extreme pornographic image, Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s.63:
The images identified by DC Linton in the browser cache are automatically stored files. There is no evidence that PRESCOTT deliberately saved, curated, or revisited these images. The defense will argue that cached files do not constitute “possession” within the meaning of the Act. Case law on this point is mixed. There is a realistic but not strong prospect of conviction.
Count 3 — Circumvention of age verification, Online Safety Act 2023:
PRESCOTT used a VPN to access websites that had implemented age verification. The Act places the primary duty on service providers. Whether use of a VPN by an individual user constitutes a criminal offence under the Act’s provisions is legally untested. This would be a test case. There is a realistic prospect of conviction, but the legal territory is novel and the defense arguments are not frivolous.
Overall Evidential Assessment: Marginal. There is a realistic prospect of conviction on Counts 1 and 3. Count 2 is weaker.
Is prosecution in the public interest?
I have considered the following factors:
The complainant parent’s expectation that action be taken
A prosecution may cause disproportionate harm to the suspect’s education, reputation, and mental health
Assessment:
This is a difficult decision.
The evidential stage is met, if marginally. The public interest stage is where the decision must be made.
The public interest factors against prosecution are substantial. However, the Online Safety Act 2023 was passed with the explicit intention of protecting children from harmful online content. If the Act’s age verification provisions carry no consequences for circumvention, the provisions are effectively unenforceable. The CPS has received guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions that early test cases are important to establish the Act’s reach.
PRESCOTT’s case presents a factual matrix that, while sympathetic, offers the opportunity to clarify the law.
I authorise charges on all three counts.
I note that this decision may be revisited should the defense file an abuse of process application, which I consider likely and not without merit.
I further note, for the record, that I am uncomfortable with this decision. The suspect is a child. The conduct is explicable. The system that produced the conduct is more culpable than the child who engaged in it. But the law does not permit me to decline prosecution on the grounds that the law itself is unjust. That is Parliament’s function.
Signed: J. Pemberton
CPS London South
18 March 2026
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
I draw the court’s attention to the final paragraph of Ms Pemberton’s decision: “I am uncomfortable with this decision.”
A CPS reviewing lawyer has put on record that she is uncomfortable prosecuting a child for doing his homework. She has put on record that the system is “more culpable than the child.” She has put on record that the law may be unjust.
And she has prosecuted him anyway.
Because the Director of Public Prosecutions wants a “test case.” Because the Online Safety Act needs “teeth.” Because someone, somewhere, decided that a fifteen-year-old boy with a bearded dragon named Gerald was the appropriate vehicle for establishing a legal precedent.
Jamie Prescott is not being prosecuted because he is a criminal. He is being prosecuted because the law needs a precedent and he is convenient.
Ms Pemberton saw this. She said so. She proceeded regardless.
The system does not lack conscience. It lacks the mechanism to act on it.
Filed as Exhibit Q
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
The previous exhibits describe a system. This exhibit describes a person.
Pupil: Jamie Prescott
Year Group: 10
Form Tutor: Ms L. Henderson
English Language: Grade 7. Jamie is an excellent student who reads widely and writes with clarity and conviction. His analytical essays show a maturity of thought beyond his years. He contributed a short story to the school magazine this term that was praised by the external examiner.
English Literature: Grade 7. Strong engagement with set texts. Jamie’s essay on power and authority in Animal Farm was the best in the year group.
Mathematics: Grade 6. Steady improvement. Jamie works hard and seeks help when needed. He responds well to feedback.
Science (Combined): Grade 7. Particularly strong in biology. Jamie asks thoughtful questions and makes connections between topics. His teacher notes that he often relates scientific concepts to broader philosophical questions.
Geography: Grade 8. Exceptional. Jamie consistently produces work of the highest standard. His teacher Mr Hargreaves describes him as “the best student I’ve taught in twenty years.”
History: Grade 7. Excellent knowledge and a genuine passion for the subject. Jamie’s coursework on the English Civil War showed original thinking and careful research.
RSHE: Engaged and thoughtful. Jamie participates fully in discussions and raises questions that show genuine intellectual engagement with the material.
Form Tutor’s Comment: Jamie is a credit to the school. He is kind to his peers, respectful to staff, and intellectually curious about everything. He has a dry sense of humour that his classmates appreciate. He mentors Year 7 students in the school’s buddy programme and is a reliable member of the school debate team. I have no concerns about Jamie’s behaviour, attitude, or wellbeing.
To Whom It May Concern:
I have taught Jamie Prescott for two years — Geography in Year 9, and Geography and RSHE in Year 10. He is one of the finest students I have encountered in my career.
Jamie is intelligent, diligent, and kind. He works hard, meets every deadline, and supports his peers. He asks questions that make me think. In a profession where that is increasingly rare, it matters.
I understand that some of the materials I used in RSHE are relevant to the charges Jamie faces. I want to be clear: I assigned the homework. I showed the slides. I directed the lessons. Jamie did what I asked him to do. If there is fault in the curriculum, the fault is mine and the system’s, not his.
I was not trained to deliver RSHE. I did my best with the materials I was given. I did not review them critically because I trusted that they had been reviewed by others. That trust was misplaced. But Jamie should not pay for my trust or the system’s failure.
He is a good boy. He did his homework. That is all.
David Hargreaves
Teacher of Geography and RSHE
Meridian Academy
I don’t know how to write a character reference for my own child. I don’t know what words are supposed to convince a court that my son is not what the charges say he is.
Jamie is fifteen. He eats cereal for breakfast and forgets to put his shoes by the door. He plays guitar badly but enthusiastically. He takes care of his bearded dragon with the kind of dedication that makes me think he’ll be a good father one day. He reads books that are too old for him and asks me questions I can’t answer.
He is not a criminal.
When Jamie was eight, he found a injured pigeon in the garden and insisted we take it to the vet. The vet said there was nothing to be done and Jamie cried for two days. When he was eleven, he stood up to a boy twice his size who was bullying a younger student. He got a black eye. He did it again the next week.
He is not a criminal.
He went to school. He sat in lessons. He did what his teachers told him. He came home and did the homework. He talked to his friends about what he’d learned. He asked me questions. He asked the school questions. He tried to understand the world as it was being explained to him.
The world was explained badly. That is not his fault.
I tried to see what they were teaching him. I wrote emails. I cited the law. I was told the materials were commercially sensitive. I was offered a thirty-minute appointment I could not attend. My concerns were acknowledged and ignored. And then, three months later, two police officers came to my kitchen while my son was eating his breakfast and told him he was being arrested.
He asked if someone could feed his lizard. That’s what he thought about. Not himself. The lizard.
Please don’t do this to him. He is a child. He is my child. He did nothing that a million other children do not do every day. The difference is that someone decided to make an example of him.
He is not an example. He is Jamie.
Helena Prescott
Jamie is my best friend. He’s the smartest person I know, and he’s also the kindest. When I was struggling with maths last year, he spent his lunch breaks helping me, even though he could have been doing his own work.
In RSHE, Jamie was the one who actually thought about the stuff we were being taught. Most of us just sat there and tried not to laugh. Jamie actually engaged. He asked questions. He shared resources. He did the reading. He was doing what good students do.
I was in the Room 4B group chat. Everything Jamie shared was school stuff — links from the school platform, a homework video, a guide to VPNs because the school filter was broken. None of it was “pornographic” in the way the charges make it sound. The meme was just a joke. Everyone laughed. Nobody was “upset and disturbed.” I don’t know who complained, but it wasn’t anyone in our group.
Jamie doesn’t deserve this. None of us do. But especially not Jamie, because he’s the one who actually tried to learn what they were teaching us.
Amara Osei, Year 10
Meridian Academy
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
I could add to this. I could note Jamie’s debate team participation, his volunteer work, his school magazine contributions. I could submit the statement from his Year 7 buddy, who describes Jamie as “the only older student who actually talks to me like a person.” I could submit his guitar teacher’s reference, which describes him as “frustratingly persistent” — a phrase I have come to regard as the defining characteristic of his intellect.
But I will not, because character references should not be necessary to prevent the prosecution of a child for doing his homework. The question is not whether Jamie Prescott is a good person. The question is whether any fifteen-year-old, good or otherwise, should face criminal charges for acting on the instructions of a state education system.
The answer is no. And the answer would be no even if Jamie were less likeable, less bright, less cooperative. The system’s failure does not become acceptable when applied to children we care less about. It is wrong in principle, and principles do not require character witnesses.
But since the court will read these references, let it read them. Let it know who it is being asked to convict.
A boy who rescued a pigeon. A boy who stood up to a bully. A boy who did his homework.
Filed as Exhibit R
R. Abramovitz, Solicitor for the Defense
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187
End of Part IV: THE HARVEST -e
Your Honour, I have submitted eighteen exhibits. I will now tell you what they say.
They say that in 2018, six United Nations agencies published a framework for teaching children about sexuality. The framework was evidence-based, humane, and correct. It affirmed that sexuality is a natural part of human development. It recommended that young people aged twelve to fifteen be taught to understand the influence of media and technology on their sexual development, including pornography. It recommended trained teachers, transparent curricula, and active partnership with parents.
The United Kingdom adopted this framework. In 2020, it made Relationships, Sex and Health Education statutory for all schools in England. The Department for Education published guidance requiring schools to teach about online safety, pornography, and healthy relationships. It stated that children should understand that pornography gives a distorted picture of sexual behaviours, but it did not explain what an undistorted picture might look like, or where a child might find one.
That is Exhibit B through D. The seed.
The Department for Education did not train the teachers. By 2021, eighty percent of schools had received no RSHE-specific training. Instead, schools were permitted — encouraged, in practice — to outsource delivery to third-party organisations. These organisations operated outside the Department’s quality assurance frameworks. Their materials were not reviewed, not standardised, and not shared with parents. When parents asked to see them, they were told the materials were commercially sensitive.
At Meridian Academy, a geography teacher named David Hargreaves was given a USB stick of slides from an organisation called Illuminate Education and told to deliver them to fifteen-year-olds. He had no training. He did his best. His slides told children that watching pornography is normal, that most adults do it, and that it can be categorised on a spectrum from mainstream to extreme. His homework asked children to research organisations that campaign for ethical pornography. A video produced by a charity called SafeSpace UK, funded by the Department for Education, told children that pornography “can actually be fun to watch.” It was viewed nearly three million times before it was quietly removed.
That is Exhibit E through I. The soil.
Jamie Prescott sat in those lessons. He took notes. He listened. He asked questions. When he was told that pornography was normal, he believed it. When he was told to research ethical pornography, he researched it. When he found additional resources on the school’s own learning platform — slides that described pornography as fun and enjoyable — he shared the link with his study group. When the school’s content filter blocked a BBC health article, he used a VPN to read it. When his classmates asked how VPNs worked, he wrote a one-page guide. When the contradiction between the curriculum and the law became apparent to him, he wrote in the margin of his notebook: “So are we supposed to look this up or not?”
He was fifteen years old. He had a bearded dragon named Gerald.
That is Exhibit J through M. The fruit.
Three years before Jamie sat in those lessons, Parliament passed the Online Safety Act 2023. It required platforms to implement age verification for pornographic content. Members of Parliament debated, on the floor of the House, whether children would simply use VPNs to bypass these measures. They were told they would. They legislated anyway. The Minister called the framework “aspirational.” A backbencher replied that aspirational legislation which cannot be enforced is not law but a press release.
In December 2025, the age verification provisions took effect. VPN downloads surged. Users bypassed one age verification system using images of a video game character. Fifteen to twenty percent of UK internet users were already using VPNs. None of them were prosecuted. Jamie Prescott was.
He was prosecuted under the Protection of Children Act 1978, a statute designed to prevent the exploitation of children by adults, not to criminalise children for sharing a screenshot of a website title page that contained no nudity and no sexual content. He was prosecuted under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 for possession of images that his browser cached automatically during visits lasting two to seven minutes. He was prosecuted under the Online Safety Act 2023 for using a legal product — a VPN — to access legal websites, in a manner consistent with the education his government provided.
Two police officers arrived at his home at half past seven in the morning. He was eating breakfast in his school uniform. They searched his bedroom and seized his laptop, his phone, and his school notebook. He asked whether someone could feed his lizard. His mother said, “He’s fifteen. He was doing his homework.”
When interviewed, Jamie declined his solicitor’s advice to give a no comment interview. He had nothing to hide. He explained everything. When asked whether he knew it was illegal for under-eighteens to access pornography, he said: “Yes, Mr Hargreaves told us. He also told us it was normal and nothing to be ashamed of. I don’t understand how it can be both.”
That is Exhibit N through Q. The harvest.
Ms Pemberton of the Crown Prosecution Service authorised charges on all three counts. She noted, for the record, that she was uncomfortable doing so. She wrote that the system was “more culpable than the child.” She proceeded because the Director of Public Prosecutions wanted a test case.
Jamie Prescott is not a test case. He is a child. He is the child this court has heard described by his teachers as the best student they have taught. He mentors younger students. He writes for the school magazine. His safeguarding lead wrote in her log: “If Jamie were doing this with geography or history, we would call it intellectual engagement. Because the subject is sex, we are logging it in a safeguarding file.”
That is Exhibit R. The person behind the case number.
Your Honour, this case is not complicated. It is a simple sequence.
The state taught Jamie that sexuality is natural. He agreed.
The state taught Jamie that pornography is a normal part of culture. He accepted this.
The state assigned Jamie homework requiring him to research pornography. He did the homework.
The state placed resources on his school’s learning platform. He found them and shared them.
The state told him VPNs exist and that everyone uses them. He used one.
The state then arrested him for all of the above.
Every act Jamie committed was a logical consequence of the education the state provided. Not a deviation from it. Not a misunderstanding of it. A direct, demonstrable, documented consequence.
The state created the curriculum. The state funded the materials. The state failed to train the teachers. The state permitted unvetted organisations to deliver content it had never reviewed. The state refused to show parents what their children were being taught. The state then passed legislation criminalising the behaviours its own curriculum encouraged. And when a fifteen-year-old boy — a good student, a kind student, a student who did his homework — acted exactly as his education predicted and intended, the state prosecuted him.
This is not justice. It is not even injustice. It is institutional incoherence elevated to the status of criminal proceedings.
I want to say something about systems, because this case is about a system.
The adults in Jamie’s life acted in good faith. Mr Hargreaves taught the lessons he was given. Mrs Woolley followed every safeguarding protocol. PC Williams executed the arrest with professionalism. DC Linton conducted a thorough investigation. Ms Pemberton applied the law as written. Helena Prescott tried to engage with her son’s education and was turned away. Even the complainant parent — whose child was in the same group chat, receiving the same materials — acted out of concern.
No individual in this chain acted with malice. Every individual acted correctly within their role. And the cumulative result is that a child who did nothing wrong is sitting in a courtroom.
When a system produces an unjust outcome without any individual within it acting unjustly, the system itself is the injustice. This is not a failure of people. It is a failure of architecture. The curriculum says one thing. The law says another. The institutions that connect them — schools, police, prosecutors — have no mechanism for resolving the contradiction. They can only transmit it downward, until it reaches the person with the least power: the child.
Jamie Prescott is at the bottom of a system that could not decide what it believed. He absorbed the contradiction. He lived it. And now the system, rather than confronting its own incoherence, has decided to resolve the contradiction by convicting the child.
I do not ask this court to reform the education system. I do not ask it to repeal the Online Safety Act. I do not ask it to hold Parliament accountable for the gap it chose to leave open. These are not within the court’s power, and they are not necessary to decide this case.
I ask this court to do one thing: dismiss the charges.
Not because Jamie Prescott is a good student, although he is. Not because his mother tried to protect him and was prevented, although she did. Not because his teacher takes responsibility for the materials, although he does.
Dismiss the charges because no child should be prosecuted for the predictable consequences of a state education. Dismiss them because the Protection of Children Act exists to protect children, and Jamie is a child. Dismiss them because possession of automatically cached browser files is not possession in any meaningful sense. Dismiss them because using a legal product is not a crime. Dismiss them because the Crown Prosecution Service’s own reviewing lawyer wrote that the system is more culpable than the child, and she was right.
Dismiss them because Jamie Prescott, sitting in his kitchen in his school uniform, asked two police officers whether someone could feed his bearded dragon. Because he turned down his solicitor’s advice and answered every question honestly. Because when confronted with the full power of the state, his instinct was not to hide but to explain.
He said: “I don’t understand how it can be both.”
Your Honour, neither does anyone else. The difference is that Jamie is the only one being punished for the question.
Ruth Abramovitz
Abramovitz & Gill
Filed as Exhibit S
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187 -e
CASE NOTE — R. Abramovitz
I am a solicitor, not a policy maker. But I have spent six months inside the architecture that produced this case, and I have some observations about what a sane alternative might look like. I offer these not as formal submissions but as a closing thought — because a defense that only says “this is wrong” without saying “here is what right might look like” is incomplete.
The question is simple: how do you educate children about sexuality in a world where pornography exists, without either pretending it does not exist or criminalising children for encountering it?
The answer, I think, is also simple. You start with the child.
The UNESCO framework got this right. Children need accurate information about their bodies, their relationships, and their developing sexuality. They need it delivered honestly, without shame, and in language appropriate to their age. They need adults who are willing to talk about difficult subjects without embarrassment and without agenda.
What they do not need is a curriculum designed by adults who cannot agree among themselves whether the subject is healthy or criminal, delivered by teachers who have not been trained, using materials produced by organisations whose motives and qualifications have not been examined.
Jamie’s notebook contains the clearest statement of what went wrong. He wrote: “This is what the whole course should be. Why is this one lesson out of twelve?” He was referring to Session 8, in which Mr Hargreaves talked about the emotional dimensions of sexual relationships — trust, communication, readiness, the difference between wanting something and being ready for it. One lesson out of twelve. The rest was taxonomy, spectrum charts, and homework assignments that sent children to research pornography.
A curriculum designed around what children need would reverse this ratio. Relationships first. Emotional literacy first. Communication first. The mechanics are the easy part; the internet will teach the mechanics whether we want it to or not. What the internet cannot teach is how to be a decent human being in intimate circumstances. That is what education is for.
This is not negotiable. You cannot require every school in England to deliver a statutory curriculum on human sexuality and then fail to train eighty percent of the teachers who must deliver it.
David Hargreaves is a geography teacher. He is, by every account, a good one. He was handed a USB stick and told to teach fifteen-year-olds about pornography. He had received no training in adolescent sexual development, no guidance on facilitating sensitive discussions, no framework for managing the emotional dynamics of a classroom full of teenagers being asked to talk about sex.
He did his best. His best included delivering, without critical review, every slide on that USB stick, including the Pornography Spectrum, the Myth or Fact quiz, and the homework assignment. He did not review these materials critically because he trusted that someone else had. Nobody had.
The alternative is straightforward. If a subject is important enough to be statutory, it is important enough to fund properly. Train the teachers. Give them time, resources, and ongoing support. Create specialist RSHE educators the way we create specialist science or mathematics educators. Do not treat the most sensitive subject in the curriculum as something any teacher can deliver with a USB stick and good intentions.
No parent should be prevented from seeing the materials used to teach their child about sexuality. This is not a complex proposition. It does not require legislation. It requires a policy decision: any material used in the delivery of RSHE must be available for parental review upon request.
Helena Prescott wrote eight emails. She cited the Department for Education’s own guidance. She was told that Illuminate Education’s lesson plans were protected by commercial confidentiality agreements. She was offered a thirty-minute supervised viewing at a time she could not attend.
This is not transparency. It is obstruction dressed in the language of intellectual property law. The materials being taught to children in state-funded schools are not trade secrets. They are educational content paid for by the public, delivered in public institutions, to children who are compelled by law to attend. Parents have a right to see them. Full stop.
If a third-party provider’s business model depends on preventing parents from reviewing the materials used to teach their children about sex, the business model is the problem.
The deepest failure in this case is the absence of any mechanism connecting the education system to the legal system. The Department for Education mandates a curriculum. The Home Office enforces laws. Nobody has ensured that the curriculum and the laws are compatible.
This produces absurdity. A child is taught in Monday’s lesson that pornography is a normal part of human culture. On Tuesday, the same child can be arrested for looking at it. The school puts resources on its learning platform that the police would classify as evidence. The teacher assigns homework that the Crown Prosecution Service would characterise as incitement.
The alternative requires nothing more radical than competence. Before mandating a curriculum, verify that the curriculum does not instruct children to commit criminal offences. Before passing legislation, assess its impact on existing educational programmes. Create a standing review mechanism — a small, independent body whose sole function is to ensure that what schools teach and what the law prohibits are not in direct contradiction.
This body does not currently exist. The result is Jamie Prescott.
I have saved this for last because it is the principle from which everything else follows.
The system that produced this case treats children as objects of policy rather than as subjects of their own lives. The UNESCO framework treats them as rights-holders. The Department for Education treats them as recipients of instruction. The Online Safety Act treats them as potential offenders. The Crown Prosecution Service treats them as test cases. The school treats them as safeguarding entries.
Nobody treats them as people.
Jamie Prescott asked a question that no adult in his life could answer: “How can something be normal and illegal at the same time?” This is a genuine philosophical question. It deserves a genuine answer. Instead, it was logged in a safeguarding file and later read aloud in a police interview.
A system that treated children as people would have heard that question and paused. It would have recognised that a fifteen-year-old who identifies a contradiction in the institutional framework is not a threat to be managed but a mind to be engaged. It would have sat with him and said: “You’re right. It doesn’t make sense. Here’s why the contradiction exists, and here’s what we’re trying to do about it. In the meantime, here’s how to navigate it safely.”
Instead, the system logged the question, ignored the questioner, and three months later sent two police officers to his kitchen.
I am aware that these proposals sound modest. They are. They amount to: train the teachers, show the parents, check the materials, make sure the curriculum and the law agree, and treat children like human beings.
None of this is utopian. None of it requires new technology, new legislation, or new institutions. It requires only that the adults responsible for children’s education and welfare do what they claim to be doing already — competently, transparently, and with the child’s interests genuinely at the centre rather than as a rhetorical decoration on policies designed to serve other purposes.
Jamie Prescott is fifteen years old. He is not a policy failure. He is not a test case. He is not a safeguarding entry or a charging decision or a parliamentary question. He is a child who went to school, listened to his teachers, did his homework, and asked the most dangerous question a student can ask:
Why?
The system could not answer. So it prosecuted him instead.
Ruth Abramovitz
Abramovitz & Gill
Filed as Exhibit T
Case Ref: R v. Prescott [2026] EWCC 1187
End of Part V: THE WITNESS
End of School of Scandals -e
Published by Centaurus Press · Universitas Scholarium · All rights reserved.