This is even worse! That means that any images on your drive, whether you actually looked at them or not, can be used to convict you!
This is icey's point. She believes that is what the law says. And, to a point, I agree, it does. Where icey and I differ is that she believes we have moved to a "guilty-until-proved-innocent" regime, whereas I don't.

It is now illegal to be in possession of certain types of image. If it can be shown that an image on your hard drive is an "extreme pornographic image" (the prosecution must demonstrate that it is, but sometimes things are so obvious they prove themselves), and that you know - or should have known - they were there, then you are guilty of the crime. The prosecution must also prove, for example, that it is your hard drive - there have been cases which have failed because it could not be said that even though the accused was the owner of the computer, it was not certain that he was the person who downloaded the images because several people had access to and used the same computer. He might not even have been aware that the pictures were there at all.

"Possession" of an image in this context is a legal term and the definition is necessarily complex. Knowledge of possession and control are key elements, however.

Once all these things have been proved beyond reasonable doubt - and in many cases, it will be the easiest thing in the world to do that (what possible reason could I have for having dozens of photgraphs of weeping women chained naked to a bed or to a wall, with needles pushed through her nipples and weights dangling from her clitoris, other than sexual gratification?) - then it is up to the defence to show that there was, in fact, a valid purpose for having them. That's refuting the prosecution's case, not proving your innocence.