§ 39. Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Attorney-General what proposals he has for initiating proceedings under Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, against the publishers of the paper backed edition of "Fanny Hill"; and what action he proposes to take regarding the seized copies of this book.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralIt is not proposed to institute proceedings under Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, in respect of this publication. Proceedings for forfeiture under Section 3 of the Act are now pending.
§ Mr. JenkinsCan the Solicitor-General say, first, why there has been such a long delay in deciding, what to do in this matter, and secondly, why, if it was thought necessary to proceed against this book at all, it was not thought better to have proceeded under Section 2, which would have brought the matter before a judge and jury instead of a magistrate's court—surely a far more suitable tribunal to deal with what looks like being the first case of literary interest for three years? Would this not also have dealt with all editions of the book where, as I understand it, a decision taken under Section 3 will deal only with the 7,000 seized copies?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralIn answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, a certain amount of delay was due to obtaining the police report, which was not obtained until 25th November, and thereafter the Director sought counsel's advice.
In answer to the second part, it is much more normal procedure, as the hon. Member will appreciate, and the decision in this particular case, which was only for forfeiture and not for prosecution of particular people, is partly being undertaken—I am restricted in certain things that I am allowed to say on this issue because the proceedings are pending—because the publishers took all steps open to them to prevent further dis- 848 tribution and publication when the matter was brought to their attention. The view was that it would be oppressive to proceed under Section 2.
Under Section 3 others can, of course, show cause—persons such as the author, the publishers, or persons in possession of the book—and having regard to the Court of Criminal Appeal's recent decision as to the incorruptibility of police officers, this procedure is the most appropriate for a publication of this kind.
§ Mr. JenkinsIs the Attorney-General aware that the publishers would prefer to have seen the proceedings taken under Section 2, because they think that this would be a more suitable tribunal for the case, the first one of its kind since "Lady Chatterley's Lover", in which the defence of literary merit is likely to be applied?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI am not aware that that is the view of the publishers. I would bring to the hon. Member's attention the fact that since the case of "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and because of the case to which I referred, there arises a different position in obtaining evidence on which a prosecution can be launched. There are different circumstances now since that case, since the incorruptibility of police officers has been dealt with by the Court of Criminal Appeal.