Cherry,

IMHO the picture would fall foul of the new law if it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual gratification, because it quite clearly appears to threaten your own life.

Contrary to icey's opinion, I believe it is for the prosecution to prove that such a picture meets the definition of extreme pornography in the first instance, not for the defence to prove it does not. But in this case, I think the prosecution would have a pretty easy time of it - the hardest part would be to prove the photograph was taken for purposes of sexual gratification. That cannot be assumed, but it might be held that it is self-evident.

If and when the prosecution make their case, and it looks like they have established beyond resonable doubt that the image is an extreme pornographic one, you can then produce your defences or rebuttals. If you raise any doubt in the judge's mind (or if it goes before a jury, in their minds) then you should be acquitted.

If, for example, a picture displayed a kitchen knife on a worktop, next to a sliced apple, say, with you standing apart from that worktop, but naked and with a dotted line drawn across your throat, the prosecution would have a much harder time proving your life appeared to be under threat, even though the same elements were present, and there was a clear sexual undertone (overtone?).

But regardless of what is in the picture, rest assured that it is not illegal to point a knife to your throat in order to get (or give) a sexual thrill: the crime is in having a photograph of it!

That's my take on the law: I don't think icey agrees. I wonder if any English Law Lords are reading this thread who would like to comment?