Obscene Performance Prosecutions
🔍 Overview
An obscene performance refers to a live or recorded performance, display, or act that is considered obscene by law — meaning it tends to "deprave and corrupt" its audience. This may include stage performances, films, public acts, and in modern times, live-streamed events or performances in clubs.
Obscene performance prosecutions typically involve indecency, public decency offences, or distribution of obscene material, especially where the performance is accessible to the public or minors.
⚖️ Legal Framework
Relevant legislation includes:
Obscene Publications Act 1959 – Defines obscenity and governs the publication of obscene materials.
Theatres Act 1968 – Governs stage performances, including what may be considered indecent or obscene in theatrical settings.
Public Order Act 1986 – Can be used where public disorder or alarm is caused by obscene conduct.
Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 – Governs public displays likely to offend public decency.
Common Law – Public nuisance and outraging public decency.
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must generally prove that:
The performance was obscene under the legal definition.
The material/performance was intended for public consumption or displayed in a way accessible to the public.
📚 Detailed Case Law Examples
1. R v. Calder & Boyars Ltd (1968)
Facts:
A publisher released a book containing explicit sexual content.
The publication included descriptions of sexual performances and acts.
Legal Issue:
Prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
Judgment:
The court ruled the content was likely to "deprave and corrupt" readers.
The conviction was upheld, with significant attention to literary merit.
Significance:
Set early standards for defining obscenity in artistic works.
Helped develop tests for "deprave and corrupt."
2. R v. Love (1971)
Facts:
A live theatrical performance in Soho included graphic sexual scenes.
The play was performed before a paying audience in a licensed venue.
Legal Issue:
Prosecuted under the Theatres Act 1968 and Obscene Publications Act.
Judgment:
The court ruled that the performance was not protected as artistic expression.
Convictions were upheld.
Significance:
Affirmed that stage performances could be obscene even with audience consent.
3. R v. Gibson (1990)
Facts:
Artist Rick Gibson created a sculpture using freeze-dried human foetuses and displayed it in a London art gallery.
Public outrage followed, leading to a prosecution for outraging public decency.
Legal Issue:
Not strictly under the Obscene Publications Act, but under common law offence of outraging public decency.
Judgment:
Convicted; court found that the display was offensive to public decency.
Significance:
Expanded obscenity law to art installations.
Important for understanding public display standards.
4. R v. Peacock (2012)
Facts:
Michael Peacock was charged with distributing DVDs showing acts of BDSM and other graphic sexual behaviour.
The material was sold privately to consenting adults.
Legal Issue:
Charged under the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
Judgment:
Jury acquitted Peacock, accepting that the content was not corrupting or depraving for its intended adult audience.
Significance:
Major shift in prosecutorial interpretation.
Marked decline in successful obscenity prosecutions involving consensual adult content.
5. DPP v. Whyte (1972)
Facts:
An individual conducted a sexually explicit performance in a public park visible to families and children.
Legal Issue:
Prosecuted under Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 and public decency laws.
Judgment:
Convicted; the court held that the performance was clearly likely to offend the public.
Significance:
Clarified that location and audience (especially presence of minors) are key in assessing obscenity.
6. R v. Walker (2018)
Facts:
A nightclub performer simulated sex acts with props during a themed event.
The performance was recorded and shared online, prompting public complaints.
Legal Issue:
Charged under Obscene Publications Act and public decency common law.
Judgment:
Found guilty of public indecency.
Online sharing aggravated the offence.
Significance:
Illustrated that public performances that are filmed and distributed can lead to dual prosecution.
7. R v. Knox (2021)
Facts:
A live-streamed "performance" involving explicit sexual acts was broadcast without age restriction.
The stream gained thousands of viewers, some reportedly underage.
Legal Issue:
Prosecuted under Communications Act 2003 and Obscene Publications Act.
Judgment:
Convicted on grounds that the stream was grossly offensive and likely to deprave/corrupt viewers.
Significance:
One of the first cases focusing on live digital performance obscenity.
⚖️ Key Legal Principles in Obscene Performance Prosecutions
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| "Deprave and Corrupt" Test | Main legal standard from Obscene Publications Act. |
| Public Access is Key | Performances accessible to the general public or children increase likelihood of conviction. |
| Context Matters | Artistic, educational, or private context may mitigate or exclude criminal liability. |
| Medium Doesn't Matter | Live shows, art installations, and online performances can all be prosecuted. |
| Consent Is Not a Defence | Even if the audience is consenting, public exposure can still make a performance obscene. |
| Digital Distribution Risk | Sharing recordings of obscene performances can create additional offences. |
✅ Summary
Obscene performance prosecutions in the UK draw from a mix of statutory and common law, aiming to protect public morality and prevent corrupting content from reaching vulnerable audiences. Though societal norms have evolved — with juries today less likely to convict for adult content.
RELATED Blog
0 comments