A man from Oxford has been charged with possessing indecent footage depicting a child involved in sexual activity with a dog on two separate mobile phones.

Andi Kadiu, who resides at The Grates in Oxford, appeared at Oxford Crown Court on Monday, April 20 for his trial.

The 36-year-old has denied two charges of producing category A indecent images of a child.

The court was told that the prosecution and defence had agreed on a set of undisputed facts. The defence argued that Kadiu did not know the footage existed and had no explanation for how it came to be stored on his phones.

Jurors heard that the clip appeared on both devices because it was copied over during a device cloning process along with other information.

The content could be viewed through the phone’s photo app.

The footage had been on Kadiu’s device for several years. The court was told it was 16 seconds long and depicted a naked child outside performing a sexual act with a dog.

After his arrest, Kadiu answered police questions without providing any significant remarks.

In his directions to the jury, Judge Michael Roques said the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A careful and unbiased assessment of the evidence is necessary. The verdict must be based purely on what has been presented. Conjecture should not be considered.

The defendant accepts the recordings were on his devices. The issue is whether he put them there.

The court heard that Kadiu had no previous convictions.

Once all evidence had been given, the barristers made their closing speeches and the judge set out the evidence for the jury.

Thomas Davidson, for the defence, argued this concerned a 16-second clip that was moved to a new phone when his data was duplicated. There was no motive to hide anything. No proof exists that he ever shared the recording with anyone. He thinks it may have arrived from a WhatsApp group. He was clearly surprised and confused. He did not download it, he never watched it. No proof indicates he knew it was there.

The benefit of the doubt must be given to the defendant. Certainty is absent. Reasonable doubt is present in this case.

In his overview, Judge Roques noted the defendant claimed had he known about the image, he would have deleted it. He insists he has never seen anything unsuitable on his phone. He states had he come across such material, he would have contacted the authorities.

The jury then retired to consider their verdict.

The trial continues.