HC Deb 23 July 1984 vol 64 cc385-7W
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend

asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to ensure wider availability to the public of information as to what video works are liable to prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 when exposed for sale or hire; and, in particular, whether he is now in a position to make a further statement concerning the publication of the guidance provided to the British Board of Film Censors.

The Attorney-General

The definition of "obscenity" in section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 does not provide an objective criterion which can be mechanically applied in all cases. Where it is in issue, in the end the courts must decide. The Government sees this as an essential safeguard and the Video Recordings Act will not change it.

During the Second Reading Debate in this House on the Bill, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department outlined what has been done to help the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC), the principal officers of which the Secretary of State expects to designate for the purposes of that Act to avoid differences in interpretation between itself and the courts. In particular, I have made available to the BBFC on a confidential basis an outline of what the Director of Public Prosecutions takes into account when considering horror videos—a source of particular difficulty. In addition the DPP gives the BBFC monthly particulars of the results which are notified to him of all proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 relating to videos.

The BBFC will have a substantial task in classifying videos in preparation for implementing the Act and it may be some time before the Act can be fully implemented. The Home Office and my Department have received representations from many retailers and trade organisations about their difficulties pending the introduction of a scheme of certification for videos in which they can have the same confidence as the cinema trade now has in certifications for cinema purposes. To help overcome these difficulties, I now outline the factors which the DPP considers in deciding whether to advise proceedings in respect of horror videos.

The basic factor is that the text of obscenity is the tendency to deprave and corrupt those who are, having regard to all the circumstances, likely to see it. The DPP therefore has to consider who is likely to view videos taken into the home. While this is ultimately for the court to decide in each particular case, the DPP considers that, in many cases, a significant number of the viewers will be children or young people.

In applying this basic factor, the film is considered as a whole. But each episode has to be examined on its own before being considered as part of the film as a whole.

The following questions may be relevant:—

  1. (a) Who is the perpetrator of the violence, and what is his reaction to it?
  2. (b) Who is the victim, and what is his reaction?
  3. (c) How is the violence inflicted, and in what circumstances?
  4. (d) How explicit is the description of the wounds, multilation or death? How prolongued? How realistic?
  5. (e) Is the violence justifiable in narrative terms?

A work is likely to be regarded as obscene if it portrays violence to such a degree and so explicitly that its appeal can only be to those who are disposed to derive positive enjoyment from seeing such violence.

Other factors may include:—

  • violence perpetrated by children;
  • self-mutilation;
  • violent abuse of women or children;
  • cannibalism;
  • use of vicious weapons (eg broken bottle);
  • use of everyday implements (eg screwdriver, shears, electric drill);
  • violence of a sexual context.

These factors are not exhaustive. Style can also be important. The more convincing the depiction of violence, the more harmful it is likely to be. But, in any event, these factors cannot be conclusive of the Director's decision in a particular case. he also has to have regard to the standards set by the courts—hence the arrangement for the results of concluded cases to be passed to the Board.

The DPP will also co-operate in arrangements to be co-ordinated by the Metropolitan Police on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers for a monthly periodic list to be compiled for the benefit of traders, specifying video works which either have been successfully proceeded against under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 or are subject to pending proceedings. The list will be available not from the DPP but from local police forces. It will contain particulars of successful action taken, independently of the DPP, under section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. These are not notifiable by police forces to the DPP.

I should emphasise that it remains the responsibility of individual traders to decide what material they will or will not stock. In particular, the fact that an item does not appear on the published list does not necessarily imply that it is not obscene. New material comes on to the market all the time and it may take some time for obscene material to come to the notice of the police or the DPP. But I am confident that the steps I have taken will considerably alleviate traders' difficulties.