Video Horror Films (Hansard, 17 November 1982)

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)
My Lords, the decision whether or not to prosecute does not rest with the Government. The Director of Public Prosecutions will continue to 527 consider each case on its merits, but has recently stated that it is his present policy to institute criminal proceedings under Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 where circumstances warrant it. In a number of recent cases forfeiture orders have been made in courts of summary jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Act following searches under warrant by the police.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that helpful Answer. Is he aware that there seems still to be some need for the Director of Public Prosecutions to clear his mind on the line which my noble and learned friend has just explained? Because last September in the Croydon Magistrates' Court summonses were taken out by a Scotland Yard chief superintendent, under Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act, which would have committed the Astra Video Company to trial before a jury and, on conviction, to a custodial sentence, and the DPP's representative had these summonses stopped so that the prosecution proceeded under Section 3, with only a possible punishment of forfeiture of the objectionable tapes. As these video tapes were declared by the magistrates to be of an exceptionally violent nature, I would ask that my noble and learned friend would confirm that he himself is confident that the Director of Public Prosecutions does understand that we in Parliament expect that the law on obscene publications, weak though it may be, be allowed to be prosecuted with the full force that Parliament has given to it.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate or constitutionally correct for me to discuss a particular case which has been heard by the courts. I am sure that the Director of Public Prosecutions has the same freedom of action as have other prosecuting authorities in relation to what kind of proceedings to undertake and when to undertake them. There are difficulties in relation to a successful prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act and the application of statutory definition must ultimately be one for the courts. I do not think that I can properly express my own view with regard to a particular case. I am sure that the Director was responsible in the quasi -judicial decision (to use slightly inaccurate language) that he took.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, in spite of the explanation by the noble and learned Lord, there appears to be something very vague about this matter. Could the noble and learned Lord explain how one decides what is an offence against the Obscene Publications Act? Is it a matter of personal judgment or can the law be invoked? If the law can be invoked, why is it not invoked? Is there some reason why some people who offend within the Soho area of London are allowed to escape?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, as with any other criminal offence it is for a judge and jury to decide whether there has been a breach of the law. The prosecuting authority has to decide, first of all, whether a case has been made which is likely to result 528 in a conviction rather than otherwise and, secondly, whether the public interest demands prosecution in that particular case. Because the case is under the Obscene Publications Act it does not differ from any other form of criminal offence. There are certain proceedings which can only be taken with the consent, I think, of the Attorney.

§ Lord Beswick
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord allow himself to say, as a matter of public policy, in view of the enormous power, and increasingly enormous power, of these communication devices to influence human behaviour, that it is essential to use every means under the law to enforce a reasonable standard of decency and taste?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I thought that I said exactly that the question of prosecution was not a matter for Government responsibility but for the prosecuting authorities. I regard that as a very important constitutional principle. That is what is inhibiting me from stating my own view about this particular matter.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, would my noble and learned friend not agree that in matters of this kind forfeiture is very seldom likely to be enough; that prosecution against distribution is the critical element that we are seeking to pursue?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I think it depends upon the case. Forfeiture may be enough or it may not. What I have said is that the Director of Public Prosecutions has stated his intention of prosecuting under Section 2 where the circumstances warrant it.