Obscene Publications Prosecutions
I. Overview: Obscene Publications Prosecutions
A. What Are Obscene Publications?
An obscene publication is any material (written, visual, audio, or digital) that tends to “deprave and corrupt” those who are likely to read, see, or hear it. This legal standard focuses not just on the content, but its likely effect on the audience.
B. Key Statute: Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA)
Section 1: Defines what counts as “obscene” – material which, taken as a whole, tends to deprave and corrupt likely consumers.
Section 2: Makes it a criminal offence to publish, distribute, sell, or possess for gain any obscene material.
Section 4: Provides a defense of “public good” – e.g., in the interests of science, literature, art, or learning.
Additional laws may apply:
Protection of Children Act 1978 – where obscene content involves minors.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 – particularly for “extreme pornography.”
Communications Act 2003 – for obscene material shared via electronic networks.
II. Legal Challenges in Obscene Publications Cases
The term “obscene” is subjective, and must be assessed based on the likely audience.
Defendants may argue the “public good” defence – e.g., educational or artistic value.
Obscenity prosecutions often overlap with censorship debates and freedom of expression (Article 10, ECHR).
Prosecution requires proof that material was published for gain, or that there was intent to distribute.
III. Detailed Case Law: Obscene Publications Prosecutions
Here are six landmark or illustrative cases:
1. R v. Penguin Books Ltd (1960)
The “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” Trial
Facts:
Penguin Books published D.H. Lawrence’s unexpurgated novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover. The book contained sexually explicit scenes and language.
Legal Issues:
Prosecuted under the OPA 1959.
Prosecution argued the book would “deprave and corrupt.”
Penguin used the public good defence, arguing literary merit.
Outcome:
Penguin was acquitted.
Judge accepted that the book had serious literary value.
Landmark case for freedom of expression and a turning point in UK obscenity law.
2. R v. Calder & Boyars Ltd (1969)
“Last Exit to Brooklyn”
Facts:
The publisher released a novel containing scenes of rape, drug use, and homosexuality. It was widely considered controversial and graphic.
Legal Issues:
Prosecuted under the OPA 1959.
Public backlash and debate about morality and censorship.
Outcome:
The initial conviction was overturned on appeal.
Court acknowledged changing social standards and literary merit.
3. R v. Anderson (1972)
Obscene Comics Prosecution
Facts:
Anderson sold underground comics featuring extreme sexual content and violent imagery.
Legal Issues:
Prosecuted for selling obscene publications for gain.
Defence argued niche audience and artistic merit.
Outcome:
Convicted under OPA.
The court found the material likely to “deprave and corrupt” due to accessibility to the public.
4. R v. Perrin (2002)
Internet Obscenity Case
Facts:
Perrin was charged for hosting and distributing obscene material on a UK website, including extreme fetish content.
Legal Issues:
First major internet obscenity case.
Tested application of OPA 1959 to digital media.
Outcome:
Convicted under the OPA.
Court held that “publication” includes web content accessible to the UK audience.
5. R v. Walsh (2012)
Extreme Pornography under Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Facts:
Walsh possessed and distributed images deemed “extreme pornography” – including acts deemed degrading and abusive.
Legal Issues:
Charged under Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Images included staged acts but were deemed capable of causing harm.
Outcome:
Convicted.
Court rejected the argument that the acts were consensual and fictional.
6. R v. Peacock (2012)
Private Gay Pornography Case
Facts:
Michael Peacock was prosecuted for selling DVDs containing homosexual fetish acts (urination, sadomasochism, etc.). All participants were adults and consenting.
Legal Issues:
Charged under OPA 1959.
Crown argued the acts were obscene.
Defence argued the material was for a niche audience unlikely to be corrupted.
Outcome:
Acquitted by jury.
Huge moment in the shift away from moralistic prosecutions.
Jury agreed that the likely consumers would not be depraved or corrupted.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Legal Issue | Outcome | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Penguin Books Ltd | 1960 | Literary obscenity | Acquitted | Defining public good defence; liberalisation of law |
| R v. Calder & Boyars Ltd | 1969 | Graphic fiction and changing standards | Conviction overturned | Recognition of evolving social norms |
| R v. Anderson | 1972 | Sale of explicit comics | Convicted | Narrower interpretation of public good defence |
| R v. Perrin | 2002 | Online obscene publication | Convicted | Applied OPA to internet; digital era obscenity |
| R v. Walsh | 2012 | Possession of extreme pornography | Convicted | Enforced CJIA 2008 on new digital offences |
| R v. Peacock | 2012 | Sale of private fetish content | Acquitted | Public jury rejects prosecution of consensual adult acts |
V. Key Takeaways
“Obscenity” is judged by its effect on the likely audience, not the general public.
The public good defence remains vital in protecting works of literary, artistic, or scientific value.
There has been a clear shift in prosecution standards—from strict moral control (1960s–80s) to modern recognition of adult consent, niche consumption, and changing social attitudes.
Internet and digital publication brought new challenges, but the law has adapted (e.g., Perrin, Walsh).
Juries play a critical role—cases like Peacock show that public opinion has significant influence on obscenity prosecutions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments