Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Obscenity and Prosecution Practice in the Twenty-First Century

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Rise of Extreme Porn

  • 706 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the basic legal framework of obscenity. It examines the contemporary application of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964, the extent to which they are effective when applied online, and the prosecution practice concerning obscenity offences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    OPA 1959, s 2, as expanded by the OPA 1964, s 1.

  2. 2.

    Ibid s 3.

  3. 3.

    Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (CJIA 2008), s 63(6)(b); this element of the extreme pornography offence is discussed in further detail in Chapters 3 and 5.

  4. 4.

    The 1959 OPA also provides the tools for controlling sound, drawings and text-based stories involving children. Indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children are dealt with by the Protection of Children Act 1978 and s 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  5. 5.

    R v Read (1708) 11 Mod 142; Fortescue 98.

  6. 6.

    DB Sova, Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Sexual Grounds (Facts on File, New York: 2006) 70.

  7. 7.

    Ibid 100 (Holt CJ).

  8. 8.

    R v Curl (1727) 2 Stra 788, ER 899.

  9. 9.

    N St John-Stevas, ‘Obscenity and the Law’ [1954] Crim LR 817, 819.

  10. 10.

    John Cleland’s Fanny Hill for example was not prosecuted when it first appeared in England in 1748.

  11. 11.

    Cox v Stinton [1951] 2 KB 1021; St John-Stevas (n 9) 820.

  12. 12.

    FJ Odgers, ‘The law and obscenity: The second of two talks by FJ Odgers’ (1954) (Oct) The Listener 613, 613.

  13. 13.

    R v Hicklin (1867–8) LR 3 QB 360.

  14. 14.

    Ibid 452 (Lord Chief Justice Cockburn).

  15. 15.

    Steele v Brannan (1872) LR 7 CP 261; R v Barraclough [1906] 1 KB 201, CCR.

  16. 16.

    ‘Miss Radclyffe Hall’s Novel: Defence to obscenity charge – Decision reserved – Large amount of evidence ruled inadmissible’ The Manchester Guardian (Manchester 10 November 1928) 14; ‘Novel condemned as obscene’ The Times (London 17 November 1928) 5.

  17. 17.

    ‘Condemned novel’ The Times (London 15 December 1928) 4.

  18. 18.

    DS Kastan, The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature (OUP, Oxford: 2006) 424; N St John-Stevas, Obscenity and The Law (Secker & Warburg, London: 1956) 96; J Chandos (ed), ‘To Deprave and Corrupt…’: Original Studies in the Nature and Definition of Obscenity (Souvenir Press, London: 1982) 35.

  19. 19.

    A Travis, Bound and Gagged: A Secret History of Obscenity in Britain (Profile Books, London: 2001) 94.

  20. 20.

    CH Rolph, ‘Obscenity obscured’ The Guardian (London 11 February 1964) 8.

  21. 21.

    [1954] 2 QB 16; Goddard LCJ confirmed that the law back then was the same as it was in 1868.

  22. 22.

    Travis (n 19) 94.

  23. 23.

    The leading figures of the publishing world were charged for publishing the books The Image and the Search by W Baxter; September in Quinze by V Connell; The Man in Control by C McGraw; The Philander by S Kauffman and Julia by M Bland, respectively.

  24. 24.

    F Selwyn, Gangland: The Case of Bentley and Craig (Routledge, London: 1988) 205.

  25. 25.

    A Travis, ‘The war on obscenity’ The Guardian (London 29 October 2010) Features 15; see also Lieut-Colonel H M Hyde (Belfast, North) in HC Deb 22 November 1954, vol 533, col 1012.

  26. 26.

    ‘Obscene Libel in Book’ The Times (London 18 September 1954) 3. Secker and Warburg, Heinemann and Barker were acquitted. In the case involving The Man in Control no one, ‘not even the policeman on duty at the court door could understand what was supposed to be wrong with it’, Rolph commented; CH Rolph, ‘Obscenity obscured’ The Guardian (London 11 February 1964) 8.

  27. 27.

    See for example Graham Greene’s (English author, playwright and literary critic) comment in G Greene, ‘Literature and the law: Prosecutions for obscenity’ The Times (London 5 June 1954) 7.

  28. 28.

    From 28 October to 5 November 1954.

  29. 29.

    B Russell, H Nicolson, C Mackenzie, JB Priestley, HE Bates, S Maugham and P Gibbs.

  30. 30.

    Quoted in AS Frefe, ‘Freedom of the pen’ The Times (London 3 December 1954) 9.

  31. 31.

    G Robertson, Obscenity: An Account of Censorship Laws and their Enforcement in England and Wales (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London: 1979) 41.

  32. 32.

    HL Deb 2 June 1959, vol 216, col 489 (Lord Birkett).

  33. 33.

    Subsequently led by Sir Gerald Barry; its members included publishers (such as Sir Allen Lane, R Hart-Davis, W. Collins); authors (e.g. HE Bates, J Pudney); an MP (Roy Jenkins), lawyers and printers, as well as critics and journalists (for example, CH Rolph, Sir H Read, VS Prichett and W Allen).

  34. 34.

    JP Eddy, ‘Obscene Publications: Society of Author’s Draft Bill’ [1955] Crim LR 218.

  35. 35.

    ‘Effort to safeguard authors and publishers’ The Manchester Guardian (30 March 1957) 2.

  36. 36.

    R Jenkins, ‘Obscenity, censorship and the law’ (October 1959) 13(4) Encounter 62.

  37. 37.

    OPA 1959, s 1(1).

  38. 38.

    T Crone, Law and the Media (4th ed, Focal Press, Oxford: 2002) 206.

  39. 39.

    OPA 1959, s 1(1).

  40. 40.

    Ibid s 4.

  41. 41.

    Ibid s 4(2).

  42. 42.

    Ibid.

  43. 43.

    Ibid s 3(4).

  44. 44.

    Odgers (n 12) 614.

  45. 45.

    OPA 1959, s 2(3).

  46. 46.

    The Customs Act 1876, except for ss 42, 43, 141, 275, 277, 283 and 285, was repealed by the Customs and Excise Act 1952.

  47. 47.

    C Davies, ‘How our rulers argue about censorship’ in R Dhavan and C Davies (eds), Censorship and Obscenity (Martin Robertson, London: 1978) 11.

  48. 48.

    ‘Obscenity in books’ The Observer (26 April 1959) 16.

  49. 49.

    A Aldgate and J Richards, Best of British: Cinema and Society from 1930 to the Present (2nd ed, IB Tauris, London: 2002) 237.

  50. 50.

    C Davies, Permissive Britain: Social Change in the Sixties and Seventies (Pitman, London: 1975) 1. For a definition of ‘anti-ascetic acts’, see D Wright, The Psychology of Moral Behaviour (Penguin, London: 1971) 67; the author gives examples, such as ‘immoral’ sexual behaviour, drug-taking and drunkenness.

  51. 51.

    C Davies, The Strange Death of Moral Britain (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey: 2004) 207.

  52. 52.

    Marwick (n 49) 18–20; see also A Marwick, British Society Since 1945 (Allen Lane, London: 1982).

  53. 53.

    CH Whiteley and WM Whiteley, The Permissive Morality (Methuen, London: 1964) 21.

  54. 54.

    Most notably, the Abortion Act and the Sexual Offences Act in 1967, the Theatres Act in 1968, the Representation of the People Act and the Divorce Reform Act in 1969.

  55. 55.

    Marwick (n 49) 18–20.

  56. 56.

    See for instance M Whitehouse, Whatever Happened to Sex (Hodder and Stoughton, London: 1977) 180–1: ‘[…] it is now a legal fact that [the] Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964 opened the floodgates to obscenity.’

  57. 57.

    [1961] Crim LR 176.

  58. 58.

    G Robertson, ‘The Trial of Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ The Guardian (London 23 October 2010) 14.

  59. 59.

    CH Rolph (ed), The Trial of Lady Chatterley: Regina v Penguin Books Limited (Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: 1961) 5.

  60. 60.

    A Strevens, ‘Literature, morality and the adversarial principle: The “fleshly school of poetry” quarrel and the trial of Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ (2001) 43(4) Critical Quarterly 31, 40.

  61. 61.

    Rolph, The Trial of Lady Chatterley (n 60) 92.

  62. 62.

    C Booker, The Neophiliacs: Revolution in English Life in the Fifties and Sixties (Pimlico, London: 1969) 195.

  63. 63.

    Wright, The Psychology of Moral Behaviour (n 51) 180–1.

  64. 64.

    Marwick (n 49) 18–20; see also A Marwick, The Sixties (OUP, Oxford: 1998).

  65. 65.

    J Sutherland, Offensive Literature: Decensorship in Britain, 1960–1982 (Junction Books, London: 1982).

  66. 66.

    Ibid 2.

  67. 67.

    A Aldgate and JC Robertson, Censorship in Theatre and Cinema (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh: 2005).

  68. 68.

    A Aldgate, Censorship and the Permissive Society (OUP, New York: 1995).

  69. 69.

    J Hill, Sex, Class and Realism: British Cinema 1956–1963 (British Film Institute, London: 1986) 48.

  70. 70.

    JC Robertson, The Hidden Cinema: British Film Censorship in Action 1913–1972 (Routledge, London: 1989) 161.

  71. 71.

    Aldgate (n 69).

  72. 72.

    B Forbes, Notes for a Life (Collin, London: 1974) 343.

  73. 73.

    M Muggeridge and M Whitehouse, ‘Darkness in our light: John Windsor on back and front lashes after the big morality festival’ The Guardian (London 11 September 1971) 11.

  74. 74.

    Sutherland (n 66) 3.

  75. 75.

    Secretary of the National Viewers and Listeners Association (which later evolved to the MediaWatch-UK), 1910–2001.

  76. 76.

    First published in 1971 in London by ‘Stage 1’, whose sole proprietor was R Handyside.

  77. 77.

    ‘“Little Red Book- close to inciting sex offences, prosecution says’ The Times (London 30 June 1971) 2.

  78. 78.

    ‘QC claims “Red Book” invited promiscuity’ The Guardian (London 21 October 1971) 6.

  79. 79.

    Ibid.

  80. 80.

    Ibid.

  81. 81.

    M Eaton, ‘Sex by the school book’ The Guardian (London 10 July 1971) 10.

  82. 82.

    ‘“Little Red Schoolbook” appeal fails’ The Guardian (London 30 October 1971) 7. Handyside took his case to Strasbourg but he eventually lost his six-year battle; Handyside v The United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737.

  83. 83.

    The book was authored by an American pornography starlet, whose claim to fame was her role in the notorious 1972 film Deep Throat, directed by Gerard Damiano.

  84. 84.

    Lord Longford cited in M Horsnell, ‘Reprints planned for Lovelace book’ The Times (London 30 January 1976) 3.

  85. 85.

    N de Jongh, ‘Love and the Law Lords: Where does the law go after the Linda trial?’ The Guardian (London 30 January 1976) 13.

  86. 86.

    The 1979 Williams Report corroborated this understanding three years later; B Williams (ed), Obscenity and Film Censorship: An Abridgement of the Williams Report (CUP, Cambridge: 1981) 160.

  87. 87.

    Sutherland (n 66) 2.

  88. 88.

    HC Deb 3 June 1964, vol 695, col 1145 (Mr CM Woodhouse, Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department).

  89. 89.

    [1961] Crim LR 175.

  90. 90.

    Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394.

  91. 91.

    [1963] 1 QB 163, 168 (Lord Parker CJ).

  92. 92.

    [1963] 2 WLR 598, 933 (Lord Parker CJ). The Appeal Committee of the House of Lords dismissed a petition by the DPP against this decision, known also as DPP v Straker [1963] 1 WLR 332.

  93. 93.

    OPA 1959, s 2(1) as amended by the OPA 1964, s 1(1).

  94. 94.

    OPA 1964, s 2(1).

  95. 95.

    cf R v Fellows [1997] 1 Cr App R 244 (the same would apply to images kept on a computer disk in digitised form), discussed below.

  96. 96.

    HC Deb 3 June 1964, vol 695, col 1210 (Solicitor-General, Mr Peter Rawlinson).

  97. 97.

    Ibid.

  98. 98.

    HC Deb 3 June 1964, vol 695, col 1150 (Mr Niall MacDermot).

  99. 99.

    See for instance HC Deb 3 June 1964, vol 695, col 1192 (Ian Gilmour, Conservative MP for Norfolk Central): ‘There are a great many other things which are far more important. One obvious thing is the gang warfare between Mods and Rockers at seaside resorts.’

  100. 100.

    OPA 1959, s 1(1).

  101. 101.

    R v Elliott [1996] 1 Cr App R 432, 436 (Wright J); R v Calder and Boyars [1969] 1 QB 151, 172 (Salmon LJ); cf G Robertson and A Nicol, Media Law (4th ed, Penguin, London: 2002) 166–7.

  102. 102.

    Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220 (HL), 227 (Ashworth J); Calder and Boyars (n 102) 168 (Salmon LJ).

  103. 103.

    OPA 1959, s 4; discussed below.

  104. 104.

    [1961] Crim LR 176; Rolph, The Trial of Lady Chatterley (n 60) 121–2.

  105. 105.

    OPA 1959, s 1(2); Section 162(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 adds material recorded in television programmes to this list.

  106. 106.

    Reference by the Attorney-General under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 (No 5 of 1980) (1981) 72 Cr App R 71.

  107. 107.

    Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 168(1) and Sch 9 para (3).

  108. 108.

    R v Taylor [1995] 1 Cr App R 131.

  109. 109.

    An ‘article’ is also defined to include a ‘record of a picture’. ‘That is what a print of a photograph is, and the prints in question constitute new articles created by the process of printing’; Ibid 135 (McCowan LJ).

  110. 110.

    R v Snowden [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 39.

  111. 111.

    Robertson and Nicol (n 102) 169. It should be noted that the obscene performance of a play, which, as opposed to its written script, is of a transient nature, does not amount to an ‘article’ within the meaning of the OPA. The performance of an obscene play does not amount to the publication of its script either. The Theatres Act 1968, s 2(2) makes it an offence ‘if an obscene performance of a play is given, whether in public or private’.

  112. 112.

    Penguin (n 58).

  113. 113.

    R v Anderson [1972] 1 QB 304, 312 (Lord Widgery CJ).

  114. 114.

    Robertson and Nicol (n 102) 165.

  115. 115.

    T Rees, ‘Obscenity – whether films obscene “taken as a whole”’ [1999] (August) Crim LR 670, 671.

  116. 116.

    R v Goring [1999] Crim LR 670 (CA, Crim Div).

  117. 117.

    Penguin (n 58) 177.

  118. 118.

    Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435, 491 (Lord Simon of Glaisdale); O’Sullivan [1995] 1 Cr App R 455, 464.

  119. 119.

    DPP v Whyte [1972] AC 849; (1973) 57 Cr App R 74, 88 (Lord Pearson).

  120. 120.

    Ibid: ‘thoughts of a most impure and libidinous character’. See also AWB Simpson, ‘Obscenity and the Law’ (1982) 1(2) Law and Philosophy (Selection from the Proceedings of the Royal Institute of Philosophy Conference on the Philosophy of Law September 1979) 239, 245.

  121. 121.

    Darbo v DPP [1992] Crim LR 56, where it was held that a warrant authorizing police to search for sexually explicit articles was invalid, since s 3 of the OPA 1959 allows the issue of a warrant only in relation to ‘obscene’ materials.

  122. 122.

    The long title of the Act reads: ‘An Act to amend the law relating to the publication of obscene matter; to provide for the protection of literature; and to strengthen the law concerning pornography.’

  123. 123.

    Calder Ltd v Powell [1965] 1 QB 509, 515 (Lord Parker CJ).

  124. 124.

    The New York Times Review of Books stated that Selby was writing about ‘the distortion of love, the rottenness of its substitutes and the horror and pathos of its perversion’; ‘Hubert Selby Jr’ The Times (London 28 April 2004) 26.

  125. 125.

    Calder and Boyars (n 102) 169 (Salmon LJ).

  126. 126.

    Anderson (n 114).

  127. 127.

    The name of the magazine was derived from the Australian origins of its editors (Richard Neville, Felix Dennis and Jim Anderson).

  128. 128.

    The trial lasted 27 working days.

  129. 129.

    The creation of the American illustrator, founder of the underground commix movement, Robert Crumb.

  130. 130.

    R Neville, Hippie Hippie Shake (Bloomsburg, London: 1995) 292.

  131. 131.

    Post Office Act 1953, s 11.

  132. 132.

    ‘Oz terms called severe’ The Guardian (London 13 August 1971) 5. A huge controversy erupted when their sentences were handed down: 15 months’ imprisonment for the editor, Neville; 12 months for Anderson and nine months for Dennis. Thirteen Labour MPs put down a Commons Early Day Motion condemning the severity of the sentences as ‘an act of revenge by the Establishment against dissenting voices’; ‘Labour MPs join hippies in storm over “Oz” sentences’ The Glasgow Herald (Glasgow 6 August 1971) 1. In addition, about 60 members of the London branch of the Nation Association of Probation Officers passed a resolution stating it was ‘alarmed’ at the prosecution and harsh sentences; M Berlins, ‘Judge to give ruling and reasons on Monday on “Oz” men’s plea for bail’ The Times (London 7 August 1971) 1–2; ‘Society versus obscenity’ The Observer (London 8 August 1971) 6.

  133. 133.

    Anderson (n 114) 316 (Lord Widgery CJ).

  134. 134.

    DG Williams, ‘Oz and Obscenity’ (1972) 30(1) Cambridge Law Journal 15, 16.

  135. 135.

    Anderson (n 114) 315 (Lord Widgery CJ).

  136. 136.

    DPP v Whyte (n 120) 863 (Lord Wilberforce); R v Clayton and Halsey [1963] 1 QB 163, 168 (Lord Parker CJ).

  137. 137.

    O’Sullivan (n 119) 466–7 (Bell J).

  138. 138.

    Calder and Boyars (n 102) 159 (Salmon LJ).

  139. 139.

    Ibid 168 (Salmon LJ).

  140. 140.

    Ibid 155 (Salmon LJ); DPP v Whyte (n 120) 865 (Lord Pearson).

  141. 141.

    DPP v Whyte (n 120) 870 (Lord Cross of Chelsea).

  142. 142.

    Ibid.

  143. 143.

    DPP v Whyte (n 120).

  144. 144.

    Ibid 862 (Lord Wilberforce).

  145. 145.

    Ibid 863 (Lord Wilberforce); for the dissenting opinions see Ibid 867 (Lord Simon of Glaisdale) and ibid 876 (Lord Salmon).

  146. 146.

    J Jaconelli, ‘Defences to speech crimes’ (2007) 1 European Human Rights Law Review 27, 31; see also DPP v Whyte (n 120) 871 (Lord Cross of Chelsea).

  147. 147.

    H Fenwick, Civil Liberties and Human Rights (4th ed, Routledge, Oxon: 2007) 471.

  148. 148.

    Hicklin (n 13) 452 (Lord Chief Justice Cockburn); Ibid.

  149. 149.

    OPA 1959, s 2(1), as amended: ‘Subject as hereinafter provided, any person who, whether for gain or not, publishes an obscene article, or who has an obscene article for publication for gain (whether gain to himself or gain to another) shall be liable […].’

  150. 150.

    Ibid s 2(3A), as amended by the Criminal Law Act 1977, s 53(2).

  151. 151.

    Cinemas Act 1985, Sch 2, para 6(3).

  152. 152.

    See also R v Barker [1962] 1 WLR 349, 351 (Ashworth J).

  153. 153.

    Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 168(1) and Sch 9 para (3).

  154. 154.

    R v Fellows [1997] 1 Cr App R 244, CA.

  155. 155.

    Ibid 256 (Evans LJ).

  156. 156.

    By virtue of the OPA 1959, s 1(3)(b).

  157. 157.

    [2012] EWCA Crim 398.

  158. 158.

    Ibid [2].

  159. 159.

    Ibid [21]–[22] (Richards LJ).

  160. 160.

    Ibid [26] (Richards LJ); the same approach was followed in DPP v Whyte (n 120) 864 (Lord Pearson); see also Interpretation Act 1978, s 6(c).

  161. 161.

    R v GS (n 158) [2].

  162. 162.

    OPA 1959, s 2(5); OPA 1964, s 1(3)(a).

  163. 163.

    JC Smith and B Hogan, Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law (11th ed, OUP, Oxford: 2005) 955.

  164. 164.

    P Carey, N Armstrong, D Lamont and J Quartermaine, Media law (4th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London: 2007) 142.

  165. 165.

    For books and magazines, see OPA 1959, s 4(1); for films and plays, see OPA 1959, s 4(1A); for television and sound or radio programmes, see Broadcasting Act 1990, Sch 15, s 5(2).

  166. 166.

    Calder and Boyars (n 102) 171.

  167. 167.

    DPP v Jordan [1976] 3 All ER 775, 786 (Viscount Dilhorne) (discussed below).

  168. 168.

    Calder and Boyars (n 102) 172.

  169. 169.

    Ibid.

  170. 170.

    Ibid.

  171. 171.

    Jaconelli (n 147) 32.

  172. 172.

    Attorney-General’s Reference (No 6 of 1977) [1978] 1 WLR 1123, 1127 (Lord Widgery CJ).

  173. 173.

    [1977] AC 699, HL.

  174. 174.

    P Kearns, ‘The ineluctable decline of obscene libel: Exculpation and abolition’ [2007] (Sep) Crim LR 667, 671.

  175. 175.

    Anderson (n 114) 313 (Lord Widgery CJ); R v Staniforth [1975] Crim LR 291; see also Simpson (n 121) 239, 246.

  176. 176.

    Calder and Boyars (n 102) 170 (Salmon LJ).

  177. 177.

    R v Skirving [1985] QB 819, which concerned the book ‘Attention Coke Lovers. Free Base. The Greatest Thing since Sex’, aimed at actual and potential abusers of cocaine.

  178. 178.

    [1968] 1 QB 159.

  179. 179.

    Anderson (n 114) 313 (Lord Widgery CJ).

  180. 180.

    R v Reiter and others [1954] 2 QB 16, 20 (Lord Goddard CJ), where the appellants were charged at the Central Criminal Court upon an indictment containing seven counts of uttering and publishing obscene libels in the form of seven books; see also Elliott (n 102) 435 (Wright J).

  181. 181.

    Rolph, The Trial of Lady Chatterley (n 60) 127.

  182. 182.

    Penguin (n 58); see also Rolph, The Trial of Lady Chatterley (n 60) 138 for Norman St John-Stevas’ testimony.

  183. 183.

    This common law offence was abolished by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s 73 on 12 January 2010.

  184. 184.

    Subsection (4A), inserted by s 53(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, makes a similar provision with respect to a film exhibition, as defined by the Cinemas Act 1985, s 24(1), Sch 2 para 6(2).

  185. 185.

    [1962] AC 220.

  186. 186.

    Ibid 262 (Viscount Simonds); the purpose of the 28-page booklet was to assist prostitutes to continue offering their services, since they were no longer permitted to solicit in the streets as a result of the Street Offences Act 1959.

  187. 187.

    Ibid 267–268.

  188. 188.

    Ibid 275.

  189. 189.

    G Robertson, Whose Conspiracy? (National Council for Civil Liberties, London: 1974) 18.

  190. 190.

    P O’Higgins, Censorship in Britain (Nelson, London: 1972), cited in R Spicer, Conspiracy: Law, Class and Society (Lawrence & Wishart, London: 1981) 85.

  191. 191.

    D Ormerod (ed), Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2012 (OUP, Oxford: 2011) 915; Shaw (n 186) 236 (Ashworth J).

  192. 192.

    LA Hart, Law, Liberty and Morality (OUP, Oxford: 1963) 7.

  193. 193.

    LA Hart, ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’ (1958) 71(4) Harvard Law Review 593.

  194. 194.

    Knuller (n 119). The major criticism against the outcome in Knuller is perhaps that it perpetuates the two different streams of jurisprudence in the area of obscenity law, i.e. the OPA and the old common law; see CT Emery, ‘After Oz – IT’ (1972) 30 Cambridge Law Journal 199, 201.

  195. 195.

    Hart (n 193) 12.

  196. 196.

    R v Gibson (1990) Cr App R 341.

  197. 197.

    Ibid 344–345 (Lord Lane).

  198. 198.

    See section ‘Disgust and the criminal law’ in Chapter 1.

  199. 199.

    European Convention on Human Rights, Art 7; see further R Clayton and H Tomlinson, The Law of Human Rights (2nd ed, OUP, Oxford: 2009) paras. 11.507–11.514.

  200. 200.

    M Childs, ‘Outraging public decency: The offence of offensiveness’ [1991] (Spr) PL 20, 29; the elements of the offence were clarified to some extent in Rose v DPP [2006] EWHC 852 (Admin) (regarding an act of oral sex performed within view of a CCTV camera in a bank foyer) and R v Hamilton [2007] EWCA Crim 2062 (regarding a person surreptitiously filming up women’s skirts). For a detailed analysis of the common law offence of outraging public decency, readers are referred to Law Commission, Simplification of Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency (Law Com No 358, 2015).

  201. 201.

    Law Commission, Conspiracy and Criminal Law Reform (Law Com No 76, 1976) para 3.143.

  202. 202.

    Home Office, Consultation: On the Possession of the Extreme Pornographic Material (Home Office Communications Directorate, London: 2005).

  203. 203.

    Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 168(1) and Sch 9 para 3.

  204. 204.

    Ibid.

  205. 205.

    R v Waddon 2000 WL 491456, [12] (Rose LJ).

  206. 206.

    Carey et al. (n 165) 149.

  207. 207.

    R v Perrin [2002] EWCA Crim 747.

  208. 208.

    Ibid [51] (Lord Justice Kennedy).

  209. 209.

    Ibid [18].

  210. 210.

    M Hirst, Jurisdiction and the Ambit of Criminal Law (OUP, Oxford: 2003) 190; M Hirst, ‘Cyber-obscenity and the Ambit of English Criminal Law’ (2002) 13(2) Computers and Law 25.

  211. 211.

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb ‘to transmit’ as: to cause (a thing) to pass, go or be conveyed to another person, place or thing; to send across an intervening space; to convey, transfer.

  212. 212.

    M Birnhack and J Rowbottom, ‘Shielding children: The European way’ (2004) 79 Chicago-Kent law Review 175, 188.

  213. 213.

    J Rowbottom, ‘Obscenity laws and the Internet: Targeting the supply and demand’ [2006] (February) Crim LR 97, 99.

  214. 214.

    Home Office, Consultation (n 203) [21] (emphasis added).

  215. 215.

    Ibid [22]. It was asserted that the Internet Watch Foundation received no reports of UK-hosted material in 2003–4. See also Chapter 1, n 19.

  216. 216.

    Ibid.

  217. 217.

    S Edwards, ‘On the contemporary application of the Obscene Publications Act 1959’ (1998) (December) Crim LR 843, 848; the material included ‘acts of violence including wooden chisel handles being pushed into the vagina and anus and lighted cigarettes being applied to the vagina, electrical shock and torture, and scenes involving a tyre lever being inserted into the anus, objects and animals inserted into the vagina and anus, beating and ball gags to the mouth, full body suspensions, coprophilia, and enemas’.

  218. 218.

    Ibid.

  219. 219.

    Ministry of Justice Circular 2009/01, Possession of Extreme Pornographic Images and Increase in the Maximum Sentence for Offences Under the Obscene Publications Act 1959: Implementation of section 63–67 and section 71 of the CJIA 2008 (Criminal Law Policy Unit, London: 2009) [13].

  220. 220.

    R v Video Appeal Committee of British Board of Film Classification Ex p British Board of Film Classification [2000] EMLR 850.

  221. 221.

    Robertson and Nicol (n 102) 213.

  222. 222.

    The editing required the removal of ‘all shots of penetration by penis, hand or dildo as well as shots of a penis being masturbated or taken into a woman’s mouth’; VAC of BBFC Ex p BBFC (n 221) 852 (Hooper J). The films denied classification included the memorable titles Horny Catbabe and Nympho Nurse Nancy.

  223. 223.

    Ibid 871 (Hooper J).

  224. 224.

    M Perkins, ‘Prime cuts’ (2009) 38(1) Index on Censorship 128, 129.

  225. 225.

    Home Office, Consultation Paper on the Regulation of R18 Videos (Home Office, London: 2000).

  226. 226.

    CPS Prosecution Policy and Guidance, Obscene Publications, http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/obscene_publications/#a05, accessed 30 July 2016.

  227. 227.

    Ibid.

  228. 228.

    Robertson and Nicol (n 102) 213; see also G Robertson, Freedom, the Individual and the Law (7th ed, Penguin, London: 1993) 227.

  229. 229.

    N Purcell, Violence and the Pornographic Imaginary: The Politics of Sex, Gender and Aggression in Hardcore Pornography (Routledge, Oxon: 2012) 202.

  230. 230.

    CPS Prosecution Policy and Guidance, Obscene Publications (n 227).

  231. 231.

    Ibid.

  232. 232.

    Robertson and Nicol (n 102) 215.

  233. 233.

    R v Walker (Newcastle Crown Court, 29 June 2009, unreported); ‘Civil servant in court over Girls Aloud “porn blog”’ The Times (London 3 October 2008) 28.

  234. 234.

    A Hirsch, ‘How to police popslash’ The Guardian (London 4 July 2009) 28.

  235. 235.

    T Owen, QC, for the defence, quoted in K Kelly, ‘“Murder” Blogger Cleared’ Daily Star (London 30 June 2009) 27.

  236. 236.

    D Perry, QC, for the prosecution, quoted in ‘Man cleared over Girls Aloud rape fantasy blog’ The Guardian Online (London 20 June 2009), http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/jun/29/girls-aloud-rape-blogger-cleared, accessed 10 June 2011.

  237. 237.

    G Robertson, ‘The Trial of Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ The Guardian (London 23 October 2010) 14.

  238. 238.

    Williams (n 87) 102, 160.

  239. 239.

    R v Peacock (Southwark Crown Court, 6 January 2012, unreported).

  240. 240.

    Perkins (n 225) 137.

  241. 241.

    S Edwards, ‘The failure of British obscenity law in the regulation of pornography’ (2000) 6(1) Journal of Sexual Aggression 111, 124.

  242. 242.

    Ibid.

  243. 243.

    Also called ‘urophilia’ and ‘undinism’ after Undine, a water nymph, from the Latin unda, ‘wave’; J Money, Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia and Gender Transposition in Childhood, Adolescence and Maturity (Irvington, New York: 1985) 272.

  244. 244.

    DA Green, ‘Obscenity victory’ New Statesman Online (London 6 January 2012), http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/01/crown-court-prosecution, (accessed 29 August 2013).

  245. 245.

    P Beaumont and N Hodgson, ‘Obscenity law in doubt after jury acquits distributor of gay pornography’ The Observer (London 8 January 2012) 15.

  246. 246.

    Contempt of Court Act 1981, s 8.

  247. 247.

    [1972] AC 849, 863 (Lord Wilberforce).

  248. 248.

    HL Deb 3 March 2008, vol 699, col 895 (Lord Hunt).

  249. 249.

    The Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send (or cause to be sent) a message or other matter that is ‘grossly offensive’ or is of an ‘indecent, obscene or menacing’ character (other than in the course of providing a programme service) through a public electronic communications network.

  250. 250.

    Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, as amended by s 43 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, criminalises the sending of an ‘indecent, grossly offensive’ or threatening letter, electronic communication (email) or other article to another person with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient.

  251. 251.

    Office for National Statistics, Internet Access: Households and Individuals 2015 (6 August 2015), http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_412758.pdf, accessed 19 July 2016.

  252. 252.

    OPA 1959, s 3(1).

  253. 253.

    OPA 1959, s 3(2).

  254. 254.

    Gold Star Publications Ltd v DPP [1981] 1 WLR 732.

  255. 255.

    Criminal Justice Act 1967, s 25; the 1967 Act amended the law relating to the proceedings in criminal courts.

  256. 256.

    OPA 1959, s 3(3).

  257. 257.

    Olympia Press Ltd v Hollis [1973] 1 WLR 1520, 1524, where summonses were issued to the defendants to show cause why numerous copies of 34 different books should not be forfeited under s 3.

  258. 258.

    Robertson (n 229) 230.

  259. 259.

    Robertson and Nicol (n 102) 175.

  260. 260.

    OPA 1959, s 2(1)(b) as amended by the CJIA 2008, s 71 with effect from 26 January 2009.

  261. 261.

    Ibid s 2(1)(a).

  262. 262.

    R v Holloway (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 128.

  263. 263.

    Ibid 131.

  264. 264.

    R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Ex p Blackburn (The Times, 7 March 1980).

  265. 265.

    Holloway (n 265) 131

  266. 266.

    Ibid.

  267. 267.

    Ibid.

  268. 268.

    Ibid.

  269. 269.

    R v Doogashurn (1988) 10 Cr App R (S) 195.

  270. 270.

    R v Knight (1990–91) 12 Cr App R (S) 319.

  271. 271.

    Ibid 321 (Wright J); ‘too much’ in Doogashurn (n 272) 196 (May LJ).

  272. 272.

    Knight (n 273) 321 (Wright J).

  273. 273.

    Ibid [320] (Wright J); children’s comics were also on sale in the body of the shop.

  274. 274.

    R v Ibrahim [1998] 1 Cr App R (S) 157.

  275. 275.

    Ibid 158–159 (Lord Bingham CJ).

  276. 276.

    Ibid 162 (Lord Bingham CJ).

  277. 277.

    R v Lamb [1998] 1 Cr App R (S) 77.

  278. 278.

    R v Snowden [2009] EWCA Crim 1200.

  279. 279.

    The maximum sentence which the law permitted at that time, i.e. before s 71 of the CJIA 2008 came into effect on 26 January 2009, was three years.

  280. 280.

    Lamb (n 280) 78 (Smedley J).

  281. 281.

    Snowden (n 281) [7]–[9].

  282. 282.

    Ibid [18] (Maddison J).

  283. 283.

    MJD Roberts, ‘Morals, Art and the Law: The passing of the Obscene Publications Act 1857’ (1985) 28(4) Victorian Studies 609, 626.

  284. 284.

    ‘The Streets of London and Public Morals’ Saturday Review: Politics, Literature, Science and Art, Vol 25 (London 16 May 1868) 646. The Saturday Review was a London weekly newspaper established in 1855. It continued to be published until 1938.

  285. 285.

    Doogashurn (n 272), Knight (n 273) and R v Pace [1998] 1 Cr App R (S) 121.

  286. 286.

    Lamb (n 280) and Snowden (n 281).

  287. 287.

    Pace (n 288) 123 (Judge Beaumont QC).

  288. 288.

    Williams (n 135) 15.

  289. 289.

    HC Deb 29 March 1957, vol 567, col 1570 (Roy Jenkins, Labour MP for Birmingham [1950–77] and member of the Society of Authors reform committee).

  290. 290.

    C McGlynn and E Rackley, ‘Criminalising extreme pornography: A lost opportunity’ (2009) 4 Crim LR 245, 247; Birnhack and Rowbottom (n 213) 186.

  291. 291.

    Birnhack and Rowbottom (n 213) 187.

  292. 292.

    CPS Prosecution Policy and Guidance, Obscene Publications (n 227).

  293. 293.

    HL Deb 18 December 1996, vol 576, cols 1593-610; HL Deb 9 March 1999, vol 598, cols 179–93.

  294. 294.

    Travis (n 19) 4.

  295. 295.

    Home Office, Consultation (n 203) [48].

  296. 296.

    Ibid.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law and Criminology, University of West London, London, United Kingdom

    Alexandros K. Antoniou

  2. Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, United Kingdom

    Dimitris Akrivos

Authors
  1. Alexandros K. Antoniou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitris Akrivos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Antoniou, A.K., Akrivos, D. (2017). Obscenity and Prosecution Practice in the Twenty-First Century. In: The Rise of Extreme Porn. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48971-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48971-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48970-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48971-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation