Sex News Headlines : Tips and Tricks | Buying porn and the possession of pornography in the UK

Buying porn and the possession of pornography in the UK

Posted in: Tips and Tricks | May 29, 2008 - 12:38:28 PM

Advice on buying porn and the possession of pornography in the UK

In UK law, pornography as such is not illegal. It only becomes so if and when it qualifies as being obscene according to the provisions of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The legal test of obscenity in that Act, is the notorious deprave and corrupt yardstick. This is the test the authorities apply, though nobody can demonstrate that anybody has ever been depraved or corrupted by a particular obscene article.

The following article is taken from the National Campaign for the Reform of the Obscene Publications Act (NCROPA) and seems to be a lucid account of the state of play of current UK law.

In UK law, pornography as such is not illegal. It only becomes so if and when it qualifies as being obscene according to the provisions of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The legal test of obscenity in that Act, is the notorious deprave and corrupt yardstick. This is the test the authorities apply, though nobody can demonstrate that anybody has ever been depraved or corrupted by a particular obscene article.

In practise, what this means is that the police and customs officers simply apply their own idiosyncratic subjective and inevitably inconsistent standards, even though they always claim that their decisions are based on what they know to have been successfully prosecuted in the courts in the past. But this measure too, is deeply flawed because the courts themselves are notoriously inconsistent in their judgements. For example, an item found obscene in one court will often be found not obscene in another, No-one can therefore state categorically that a particular item is obscene in the eyes of the law, and the outcome of any prosecution is effectively a lottery.

However, mere possession of obscene material is not in itself an offence, but could be so if illegally imported. Moreover, the showing of any obscene article on one's private possession, to another person, whether a friend or not, has incredibly been interpreted by the courts as publishing. So strictly speaking, this is an offence under the 1959 Act, whether for gain or not.

However with material involving or depicting children under the age of 16, the criteria applied, according to the protection of Children Act 1978, is quite simply that of indecency, which is not subject to the deprave and corrupt limitation of the OPA's obscenity test, and as such it is interpreted by the courts much more broadly, and often recklessly. Furthermore, under Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, mere possession of such indecent material (of under 16 year olds) , became a criminal offence, which has recently allowed the police to concern themselves with even the most innocuous material. What's more, the onus is on any defendant charged with possession of material in which those involved appear or seem to be underage, to prove otherwise (quite often an impossibility).

With regard to the importation into the UK of allegedly obscene material, although the provisions of the Customs Consolidation Act (dating back to 1876!) still apply, which prohibit the importation of indecent or obscene material, customs officers now apply the obscenity test of the OPA, Not that this gives much cause for comfort.

HM Customs and Excise officers are given frighteningly wide powers to deal with obscene material, possibly rivalling those of the Third Reich! Their main weapon, where a small number of items is concerned, is the confiscation of the offending material (again often depending on the idiosyncratic and subjective whims of their officers).

The OPA doesn't legally apply to Customs. They might use it as a guideline as part of their policies, but the test that they use is the milder 'considered to be indecent or obscene' rather than the ' ... deprave and corrupt...' one stipulated by the OPA. The laws they use are given at the end of the notice of seizures that they hand out. They use the Customs and Land Management Act (CLMA) which defines a 'considered to be indecent or obscene' criteria, and this is the criteria that they are legally entitled to use. The difference is quite large; under the OPA, something is only obscene if it can be found obscene and convicted as such by a jury (innocent until proven guilty), whilst under the CLMA, only one individual customs officer has to consider the film obscene. The burden of proof is then reversed. If you take Customs  to court, then you have to prove that seized material is not obscene, rather than them prove that it is. It's easy to see why Customs are so desperate to cling on to this criteria trather than have to use the OPA.

But if they suspect you of being a commercial importer, carrier or dealer, you will almost certainly be arrested, strip-searched and taken under escort to your home which will then also be searched.

If you wish to challenge a so-called simple confiscation order, you can do so within 28 days. The case (which is a civil, not criminal hearing), will then be heard before magistrates, where again the onus is on you to show that the material is not obscene, is not therefore illegal and consequently should be returned to you. Not an easy task, because in practice magistrates invariably rubber-stamp customs seizures - and you may be liable for costs, too.

Customs officers are now permitted to exercise a personal use tolerance clause which instructs them not to seize small quantities of obscene material (so you're allowed up to three books or magazines), providing none of the items depict children, and there are no duplicate items, and there is no suspicion that the individual is a regular visitor abusing this tolerance.

(And not that this tolerance clause also excludes video tapes, films, laserdisc and computer discs which will still be seized).

However, in the supposedly free West where freedom of expression is rightfully taken for granted, such big-hearted concessions to us repressed Brits are hardly likely to fill us with paroxysms of joy. Effectively British state nannyism and hypocrisy still pervades.

There has been a lot of discussion in the news groups about the possession of imported porn. The appropriate sections of the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979 seem to be predictably draconian.

s.170
(1) ...if any person
(a) knowingly acquires possession of any of the following goods, that is to say ...
(ii) goods which are chargeable with a duty which has not been paid;
or
(iii) goods with respect to the importation or exportation of which any prohibition or restriction is for the time being in force...
(b) is in any way knowingly concerned in carrying, removing, deposing, *harbouring*, *keeping* or concealing or in any manner dealing with any such goods, and does so with intent... to evade any such prohibition... he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and may be detained...
(3) ...a person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable--
(a) on summary conviction...
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a penalty of any amount or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both. So, there you are.

Lingerie – stylish and glamorous