It has always seemed bizarre to me that pornography, distributed to those who are fully aware of its contents, might be considered likely to deprave, whereas The Sun is allowed to debase women every single day of the week through its publication of soft porn. In my view this kind of case highlights the difference between laws which are genuinely intended for the public good and what They think You Should Not Do.

The law has long had an unhealthy obsession with gay sex, this seems to be just more of the same. The CPS should stick to cases of non-consensual pornography (e.g. involving children) and leave the "weirdoes" to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else; after all, the performers in these films do not themselves appear to think they are being exploited.

Graham,

I totally agree. Yesterday a case against a prostitute who ran a brothel was thrown out because of lack of evidence. This took 18 months to com to, trial and several fals starts at the Crown Court. It was in no ones interest to pursue this case, it was against ACPO and Home Office guidelines. But no the CPS and police continued to waste money on consensual paid for sex.

Peacock's DVD sales must be going through the roof though.

"Obscene...Depraved...Corrupting...officially! It's the DVD they tried to ban. Yours for £9.99"

Lot of nonesense. It isn't against the law to perform those acts - whatever they entail! So how can it be against the law to purchase dvd's portraying those acts?

Each to his or her own. The minute the Law gets involved in consensual sex, the last almost unregulated pleasure known to mankind, then you know we're in trouble.

Jury nullification does exist in English law in the same way as US - juries are able to return a not guilty verdict on someone who has plainly broken the law, and for any reason (including disagreement with the law). However since 2003 the common law prohibition on double jeopardy has been partially lifted, so if "very compelling new evidence" were discovered, an acquitted defendant could be retried.

If a defendant has secured their acquittal through bribes or threats to the jury or a witness, it can be found to be a 'tainted acquittal' and the case retried.

@ mdwh

Yes I know. I don't have a problem with consenting adult(s) who purchase such material if that's what they want, do you?

@ mdwh and Des demona

"to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied"

Oh ffs!

Can two consenting people not just do what they want in private??

" . . .and the judge and jury are (rightly) obliged to apply the law to the facts which are determined by trial."

Here in the USA, we have something called "jury nullification" (admittedly contentious, but only lawyers are against it, everybody else AND a bunch of lawyers are for it). It is so contentious, the USA Supreme Court has essentially ordered the judges of the US to lie to the juries by NOT ever mentioning this power which they have.

Now, here's the question - - Since an awful lot of USA law came from England, correct me, but doesn't england have "jury nullification"? Or have the powers that BE managed to squelch all awareness?

The obscene publications act has no place in a modern society. The fact that this case is even being proscuted shows that certain people in the CPS don't have enough to do.

People who watch this kind of material do so as consenting adults. There should be no case to answer.

"The Obscene Publications Act 1959 ....... was introduced as a private members' bill..."

snort, guffaw, lol, rofl......

BDSM - Barrister Decries Sick Movies?

How weird that a group of uptight outsiders are picking over the minutiae of this with what can only be described as er... very keen interest.
I've never understood why anti-porners like Whitehouse moved heaven and earth to put porn at the heart of her life.

Is it just me that approves of this trial? We surely need to test our laws from time to time to ensure they are fit for purpose. It's high time we reviewed and corrected the obscenity laws in view of the advances in technology since the law was introduced, so let's highlight it's flaws publicly and come up with a better alternative. Hopefully we will then be treated as adults able to decide for ourselves what offends us, and equally able to avoid it.

"I've never understood why anti-porners like Whitehouse moved heaven and earth to put porn at the heart of her life."

clearly they were all turned into a raving perverts, it's the only explanation that tallies with their claims. (this point was raised in the article)