If they had found something, say a lower grade offence, s summons through the post can be typical.
The fact they want you in again suggests they've not looked at the phone and want to poke you again,
or they have found something suspicious which may or may not lead them to greater forensics depending
what you may say.
Remember trhey have to PROVE what the offence is, so whilst a NO Comment interview may not assist
them it is, as others have said, a chance to put your side over. Also don't forget you can control the narrative
by doing a written statement if they tell you what its all about. That way they can't cacth you out when speaking.

This puts my mind at ease somewhat.

The interview is in about twelve hours, so I'm understandably nervous. I don't know what I'd even say to defend myself - I've no idea what they've found if they have even found anything.

I vaguely remember an email where an encrypted something-or-other was mentioned (doubt it was my laptop, but I'm pretty sure something that comes with the phone fits the bill). I binned the bit of paper with all my passwords on not long after my initial arrest (I'd had to change them all when I got a new phone anyway, so I didn't see a need to keep it) so if that's all they want to ask about I genuinely can't help them - surely the fifth richest government in the world can get past one consumer electronics gimmick.

There was an interesting programme about forensics on BBC2 recently. Genuine iphones are impossible for the police to crack, but other forms of encryption are less secure.

There is a very good article on Privacy International or an offshoot link that bascially says that iPhones 7 and up (without the PIN) are very difficult
to extract info from, to the point that unless they think the offence is very serious or they are desperate for evidence then they aren't going to get in
without using a specialist software extraction tool such as Cellbrite that's equivalent to brute force, wrecks the phone memory and can even cause
data to be lost or altered or compromised in the process, and on average costs the police around £2-3,000 a pop. 
They'll usually try and force a suspect to hand over/tell them their PIN but you don't have to, especially if you've not been arrested and even
if you have been arrested one can simply say they've forgotten it due to the stress and trauma. Very few cases in the UK have gone to Court to enforce
a PIN and prosecute because its fraught with danger/cost for the prosecution.

Apple's constant security updates makes them the best phone in this respect and I additionally i would recommend that anyone's password for peace
of mind is fairly long with a mixture of characters.  The iPhones with a 6 digit PIN are effective but some extraction tools will eventually break the PIN
down with multiple attempts of combinations, though at the same time/cost/benefit scenario for the police/prosecution.

Bad news.

Just got back from the interview and they say they've found hundreds of 'inaccessible images'.

About two hundred Cat A, and about as many Cat B and Cat C.

Only maybe two or three were actually 'accessible' and they were a Cat C and a 'prohibited' image.

No idea what 'inaccessible' means. It's either that I've deleted them, which might help my defence when this (now inevitably) goes to court, or it just means they were in that Samsung Secure Folder (which they've apparently managed to open) and weren't deleted.

They read out a few examples of what they found and it was incredibly grim, but I didn't recognise anything they described, so at least there may be a defence that I could've inadvertantly downloaded them along with lots of other stuff and never actually looked at them.

There were also a list of search terms which I didn't recognise, so not really sure where that fits in. One of them was literally 'pedophile', which is hardly evidence, and another was straight-up just 'kiddy porn' - why would I have ever searched that?

I suppose there's nothing I can do now except wait (again).

I've been told to probably expect a letter from CPS detailing the actual charges...which will almost certainly take many many more months.

Thanks for everyone's support, but I really don't think there's anything to be done in the short term now. Just hope I'm not actually sent to prison over this.

https://www.pcdsolicitors.co.uk/your-defence/forensic-evidence/
https://www.pcdsolicitors.co.uk/advice-news/latest-news/not-guilty-verdict-in-indecent-images-case/

First of all, is this a new device or is it second hand? Could anyone else have had access to it apart from you? The dates when these images were downloaded or when the searches were done will be important. As in the case above, its possible the images could have been downloaded accidentally, as part of a bulk download, but proving it is another matter.

Since at least one image was accessible, then they may only charge for those, and the search terms are being mentioned, are to prove to a court that it was deliberate not accidental. The other thing to consider is whether the Cat C is on the borderline of being illegal. Did your solicitor give you any advice?

Thanks for the response.

The solicitor didn't really say much beyond just wait for a letter from CPS.

I don't think there's any point trying to dispute whether or not it was me who downloaded it, but it genuinely was downloaded as part of massive bulk folders - though I don't know how I prove that.

The dates they gave me are pretty much exactly just the length of time I had the phone, which doesn't really make any sense, because it's not like I just bought a new phone and started downloading indecent images immediately. Plus the search terms are really weird (I don't recognise any of them) and I'm struggling to see how they'd really prove anything - especially as anything illegal that was downloaded wasn't from a website (and certainly not Google).

I suspect my defence will have to lean on the fact that everything was sent to me by anonymous strangers and there was little way to know what I'd actually downloaded until it was already on the phone (I'm pretty confident that anything I actually saw that was illegal was deleted). I just wanted to share porn with some random guys - I didn't think they'd send me *that*. Also that I never went to any real lengths to source such images - I never did anything like accessing the dark web, or paying for it, or even worse actually talking to anyone under 18. Plus, the fact it was in a 'hidden folder' can be explained as 'it's a feature that comes with the phone' and had lots of legal porn mixed in, and that I'm bisexual and not out of the closet, so there's a lot of gay porn on there that I wouldn't want my friends or family to see if they pinched my phone - same reason as to why I was contacting random guys on the internet. (None of this sounds like a court will give a damn though...but it is at least true.)

Hopefully a lot of the numbers are made up by duplicates (something which they even told me could be the case) and as you say, best case scenario is they charge me with the one Cat C and the prohibited image (I didn't know prohibited images were illegal until I was told during the first interview - I think they're legal in America, so I may have been falsely reassured by Google).

I can't stop thinking about the sheer number of things they found - I really was expecting to go in and just be grilled over the password I threw in the bin about a year ago. I was shocked when the solicitor told me there were 'over two hundred of the most serious category', then frankly appalled when the police later described them. At least I'm not being accused of any contact offences.

I'm desperately trying to mentally prepare myself for 10 years on the SOR and I've been reading about other people's SHPOs and thinking how hard that's going to make everything. I've already been unemployed since they nabbed me at work 17 months ago, now it's looking like I'm not going to get back into the real world for actual years (I really thought this was going to be over until yesterday's interview - I was browsing Indeed and thinking about different jobs I could apply for...that's gone now).

Really don't want to go to prison. I thought I was ready for that when I was first arrested, but that was a very long time ago now. Frankly, I'm just scared...hence that massive rambling message.

Firstly, when the charge comes through you must INSIST your solicitor obtains an independent copy of the image they extracted from your phone NOT a copy of the extraction report.  These are NOT the same.
The police extraction report will ONLY detail what they want you to see in their prosecution. That's how they work.
That copy image could be your best defence and source of "who found what when" and I would suggest that your solicitor finds an independent forensic expert (yes, i know more cost)  to examine it on your behalf
to give you/solicitor the best defence of minimising any sentence or even downgrading it to a community order and/or suspended custodial.

Secondly, why did they come for you at work. What was the offence? Were you just part of a sting operation e.g. illegal porn downloads.  If there is no online contact offence then how would they know to come for you?

Inaccessible generally means they've been deleted are what as known as 'orphan' files.

If it helps put your mind at ease about a custodial sentence, I was convicted on around 200 images throughout the various categories, all of them inaccessible, I wasn't given a custodial or even a suspended sentence. It was a community resolution (community service), rehab program, and 3yrs on the registry.

Of course everyone is different but unless you're actively making the images and have a colossal amount I've found image-based offences rarely end up with a custodial sentence unless there are other mitigating factors (like not first offence etc.)

Deleting images only matters if you deleted them quickly. Within 24 hrs. If you waited any longer that that, you can still be charged for them. So the dates they were downloaded and the date they were deleted may give you a defence for the inaccessible images. But it may not.

In terms of sentencing, it hardly makes any difference if they charge for 1 cat C,or 200 cat A, because the outcome will be much the same. You could spend a lot of time and energy proving that the 200 cat A were deleted straight away, but you will still go down for the cat Cs that are accessible.

Your defence really centres on the cat Cs that were accessible and whether they meet the threshold for Cat C. It may be worth getting a specialist forensic report, or it may not. Only you know what you were looking at.