David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

Syndicate contentRSS

Obscenity victory

An illiberal and misconceived prosecution fails at Southwark Crown Court.

The jury at Southwark Crown Court has returned unanimous Not Guilty verdicts on each of the six charges under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 against Michael Peacock.

The prosecution failed to convince a single juror that any of the DVD material distributed by Peacock was "depraving and corrupting" under the 1959 Act. The DVDs contained sexual practices such as fisting, BDSM, and so-called "watersports" depicted between consenting adults.

Statement from Crown Prosecution Service:

The CPS charged Michael Peacock with publishing obscene articles for gain, as we were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to secure a realistic prospect of conviction, and that it was in the public interest to prosecute these allegations.

The prosecution was not only about the content of the material, but the way in which it was being distributed to others, without checks being made as to the age or identity of recipients.

The judge was satisfied that there was a case to answer, but having heard all of the evidence for both the prosecution and the defence, the jury acquitted the defendant.

We respect the jury's decision.

Statement from Mr Peacock's solicitors Hodge Jones & Allen:

The trial of Michael Peacock for six counts of distributing obscene DVDs under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 concluded today with an acquittal.

The jury, which had watched large parts of the 'hard core' male-on-male DVDs took under 2 hours to find Mr Peacock not guilty.

Mr Peacock had been advertising the DVDs online and selling them from his flat in Brixton. Officers from SCD9 (the former Obscene Publications Squad of the Met) saw the adverts and operated an undercover test purchase. Six DVD's featuring various sex acts including 'fisting' and BDSM were deemed by police to be obscene and Mr Peacock was prosecuted.

Myles Jackman, a solicitor at Hodge Jones & Allen, with a specialist interest in obscenity law, commented: "The jury's verdict is a significant victory for common sense suggesting that the OPA has been rendered irrelevant in the digital age. Normal jurors did not consider representations of consensual adult sexuality would deprave and corrupt the viewer."

Senior Criminal Partner, Nigel Richardson, acting for Mr Peacock, stated that "from the outset Michael has displayed an enormous amount of courage in contesting these charges. The jury's verdict vindicates his decision to challenge this arcane and archaic legislation. The result is also a testament to [HJA crime partner] Sandra Paul's persuasive advocacy."

More to follow.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

11 comments

Andrew Chapman's picture

This is quite a good article. Many new questions emerge to the surface, all you need do is to read further information about the issues. Only then one can form a final view on a particular subject. Otherwise everything is seen only in the dimension of cum more black and white. The natural logic of evaluating things before vstavane skrine they were properly cognitively processed is a horrible mistake, made by those less intelligent. People should not throw away their common slovakia sense easily. Anything and everything deserves appropriate time for making judgements.

mattwardman's picture

Good

Thank-you for the account.

Kimpatsu's picture

I hope this is the start of something good.
Next: Twittergate.

Dr Phil Thomas's picture

Given the amount of porn available on the internet, one suspects it's impossible to deprave and corrupt many people in this day and age. The CPS rightly brought the prosecution in order to test the current state of the law, particularly in respect of the distribution of material to minors.

Ann Kittenplan's picture

Isn't this one of those good news stories we never get to hear? OK it's not a skateboarding dog but it almost deserves an ...And Finally spot.

Progress for progressives.

AISI it's heartening that 12 good people and true returned a unanimous not guilty.

Contrast that with what we are always told is the voice of the people, ie the right wing press. What would the Mail and Little Englanders have made of this?

And compare it with Operation Spanner (which I've not seen mentioned in relation to this case). IIRC that was a very similar prosecution that led to convictions. Not this time. Again, progress.

I think if you bypass the media and the politicians and talk to real people you get all sorts of liberal and tolerant opinions. Sometimes. This was one of those times.

crabstix's picture

Hooray! They cheer,punching the air...

Hrry's picture

If the CPS's principal concern was to stop this defendant distributing videos to minors (or to people who had not verified their age) then why did't they prosecute him for that rather than interfering with the rights of adults?

Latest tweets