R v Peacock

Last updated

R v Peacock
Obscenity Trial.JPG
Michael Peacock celebrating his victory outside Southwark Crown Court.
CourtSouthwark Crown Court
Full case nameR v Michael Peacock
Decided6 January 2012

R v Peacock was an English Crown Court case that was a test of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. [1] In December 2009, the defendant, a male escort named Michael Peacock, had been charged by the Metropolitan Police for selling hardcore gay pornography that the police believed had the ability to "deprave or corrupt" the viewer, which was illegal under the Obscene Publications Act. He was subsequently acquitted through a trial by jury in January 2012.

Contents

At the time, Peacock was the only individual to have successfully pleaded 'not guilty' under the Act in a case involving the kind of gay BDSM pornography which he published. [1] Legal experts said that, following the case, the Obscene Publications Act now "made no sense". [2] It was also notable as one of the early cases in the English courts where live tweeting was a significant source of reporting and publicising the deliberations of the case following the 14 December 2011 guidance from the Lord Chief Justice which allowed tweeting in English Courts.

Details of the case

Arrest and charge

The man at the centre of the trial was Michael Peacock (born 6 September 1958), an independent male escort who had been operating in the profession since November 2004. A former railway worker, Peacock decided to enter the sex industry in his mid-40s. At the time of the police investigation, Peacock advertised his services on his own personal website, entitled "Sleazy Michael", and also advertised hardcore pornographic DVDs for sale on the Craigslist website. [3] [4] Some of these DVDs included films which featured extreme sexual acts between men, such as BDSM (whipping, staged kidnapping and rape play), fisting and urolagnia. [4] [5] [6] [7]

While these acts were themselves not illegal in the United Kingdom at the time, the Human Exploitation and Organised Crime Command of the Metropolitan Police considered such DVDs illegal under the Obscene Publications Act of 1959, which prohibited the sale of materials that could "deprave and corrupt" the viewer. In January 2009 they sent an undercover police officer to purchase some of these DVDs from Peacock at his home in Finsbury Park, North London. [2] [4] [5] [8] On 14 December 2009, the Metropolitan Police charged Peacock with six counts under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. [4] [5] [6] [7] If found guilty he could have faced a five-year prison sentence. [2]

Trial

"Perhaps illogically, of these sexual acts, fisting and urination are completely legal to perform in real life; and thus it is only the representation of these acts on film which may be considered obscene and therefore attract criminal liability. Consequently many pornographic film producers operate a "four finger rule" to avoid the risk of criminal prosecution. This means that in such films only four fingers are inserted into the performers' vagina or anus, rather than the entire fist. It could be argued that this is an entirely arbitrary distinction as the act of fisting itself is not illegal. However, many pornographic film producers remain risk-averse and therefore the presumption that urination and fisting are obscene has endured as it seems that no previous defendant has been prepared to test the law in this area by electing jury trial."

Myles Jackman, defence solicitor. [6]

After being postponed twice, the trial began on 2 January 2012, at Southwark Crown Court in South London. The prosecution claimed that several of the scenes featured in the pornographic DVDs which Peacock sold had the ability to "deprave and corrupt" the viewer and as such were illegal. They suggested that the customers purchasing the DVDs had not been aware of their extreme content, a claim Peacock denied, asserting that those purchasing the pornography "asked me for specific titles or niches, and knew exactly what they were getting". [2]

Peacock's defence was conducted by the law firm Hodge Jones & Allen. [6] His defence solicitor Nigel Richardson described his client as being a well-known member of the London gay community, [5] and remarked that "The whole idea of something being depraved or corrupt is outdated." [5] Another of the advocates for the defence, Myles Jackman, tweeted throughout the trial, using the hashtag of #obscenitytrial, [3] [9] and through Twitter helped to build up an online support base for Peacock. Jackman recognised it as having important implications for UK law, noting that the verdict would "ultimately clarify the law on the representation" of specialist sexual acts such as BDSM and urolagnia. [3] During the trial, the defence called for expert evidence from academics studying sex and the media. [6]

The jury, of both men and women, were shown several hours of footage from Peacock's DVDs – including images on BDSM, urolagnia and a man being punched in the testicles – in an attempt to decide whether they could "deprave or corrupt" the viewer. Richardson later related that although "they were quite shocked initially, they started to look quite bored very quickly". [3] [5] During the trial, the court had repeatedly warned the jury not to convict on any "impulse of homophobic disgust" that they might have regarding the acts taking place in the DVDs. [1]

After four days, the trial came to an end on 6 January 2012. [3] [7] In summing up the case, the Recorder James Dingemans QC stated that the jury must decide whether the pornography did breach the Act, and noted that "in a civilised society, lines must be drawn". [4] It subsequently took the jury two hours to come to a verdict of "not guilty", deciding that the scenes depicted in the DVDs were unable to deprave or corrupt any viewer watching them. [2] Nigel Richardson later told the press that the jury had recognised that the pornography found in the DVDs would only be seen by "gay men specifically asking for this type of material" and not by the general public. [5]

Aftermath

Legal experts said that officers from SCD9, the specialist team within the Metropolitan Police, would be meeting with the Crown Prosecution Service (the prosecuting legal authority in England) and the British Board of Film Classification (responsible for film and DVD control and censorship) to review their guidelines following the jury's decision. [2] [4] [5] [8] Specialist lawyers said the ruling may change the material that adult film producers will make and supply. [6] Sex worker turned writer Brooke Magnanti said the publishing industry would be relieved by the outcome of the case. [10]

When asked if he felt he had suffered any homophobia during the experience, Peacock denied it, stating that "Personally, I didn't feel there was any homophobic angle to the questioning, either by the arresting officers or in court. And full credit to the jury. I noticed a distinct change in their reactions over the course of the trial." [7]

Defense solicitor Myles Jackman claimed that the verdict had been "a significant victory for common sense". [2] He considered the trial to be the "most significant in a decade", believing that it "could be the final nail in the coffin for the Obscene Publications Act in the digital age because the jury's verdict shows that normal people view consensual adult pornography as a part of everyday life and are no longer shocked, depraved or corrupted by it". [5] Jackman had been responsible for maintaining the Twitter account devoted to the trial, and following the verdict, a flurry of Twitter users tweeted in support of Peacock, many criticising the fact that the case ever came to court in the first place. [9]

Various experts in the field of sex and pornography claimed that the trial was significant because it reflected that the general British public understood sexuality in a new way, something that the law at the time didn't take into account. [2] The academic sexologist Feona Attwood of Sheffield Hallam University, who herself had attended the trial, claimed that "I think the law does not make sense. All the evidence that was heard was about whether the material had the ability to harm and corrupt. The question now is, what does that actually mean? What is significant is that the jury understood [the issues at stake]." [2]

The conservative pressure group Mediawatch-uk argued that the trial reflected a need to make the Obscene Publications Act more specific; the group's director Vivienne Pattison claimed that the R v Peacock case "illustrates the problem" with the law as it stood, noting that "There is not a list which says what is obscene and what is not. It makes it incredibly difficult to get a conviction on that". In response to the events of the trial she argued that while "As a society we are moving to a place where porn is considered as kind of fun between consenting adults," she felt that this was problematic because in her opinion "porn is damaging." [5]

Media response

Writing for The Guardian , Nichi Hodgson proclaimed that the verdict represented "a great day for English sexual liberties", proceeding to state "Thank god the jury had sense to see that in 2012, telling others what is depraved – and prosecuting them for "debasing" your mind if they publish material featuring it and you are privy to it, is as absurd as it is anachronistic." [1]

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fisting</span> Sex act

Fisting, handballing, fist-fucking, brachiovaginal, or brachioproctic insertion is a sexual activity that involves inserting a hand into the vagina or rectum. Once insertion is complete, the fingers are either clenched into a fist or kept straight. Fisting may be performed without a partner, but it is most often a partnered activity.

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court modifying its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the Miller test.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Obscene Publications Acts</span> United Kingdom legislation

Since 1857, a series of obscenity laws known as the Obscene Publications Acts have governed what can be published in England and Wales. The classic definition of criminal obscenity is if it "tends to deprave and corrupt," stated in 1868 by Lord Justice Cockburn, in Regina v. Hicklin, now known as the Hicklin test.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">R18 (British Board of Film Classification)</span> BBFC content rating used for hardcore pornographic films

R18 is a film or video classification given by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). It is intended to provide a classification for works that do not breach UK law, but exceed what the BBFC considers acceptable in the 18 category. In practice, this means hardcore pornography.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Obscene Publications Act 1857</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Obscene Publications Act 1857, also known as Lord Campbell's Act or Campbell's Act, was a piece of legislation in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland dealing with obscenity. For the first time, it made the sale of obscene material a statutory offence, giving the courts power to seize and destroy offending material. The Act superseded a 1787 Royal Proclamation by George III titled Proclamation for the Discouragement of Vice. The proclamation commanded the prosecution of those guilty of "excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord's Day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices". Prior to this Act, the "exposure for sale" of "obscene books and prints" had been made illegal by the Vagrancy Act 1824. but the publication of obscene material was a common law misdemeanour The effective prosecution of authors and publishers was difficult even in cases where the material was clearly intended as pornography.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Obscene Publications Act 1959</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament that significantly reformed the law related to obscenity in England and Wales. Prior to the passage of the Act, the law on publishing obscene materials was governed by the common law case of R v Hicklin, which had no exceptions for artistic merit or the public good. During the 1950s, the Society of Authors formed a committee to recommend reform of the existing law, submitting a draft bill to the Home Office in February 1955. After several failed attempts to push a bill through Parliament, a committee finally succeeded in creating a viable bill, which was introduced to Parliament by Roy Jenkins and given the Royal Assent on 29 July 1959, coming into force on 29 August 1959 as the Obscene Publications Act 1959. With the committee consisting of both censors and reformers, the actual reform of the law was limited, with several extensions to police powers included in the final version.

The Hicklin test is a legal test for obscenity established by the English case Regina v Hicklin (1868). At issue was the statutory interpretation of the word "obscene" in the Obscene Publications Act 1857, which authorized the destruction of obscene books. The court held that all material tending "to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was obscene, regardless of its artistic or literary merit.

United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, 5 F. Supp. 182, is a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in a case dealing with freedom of expression. At issue was whether James Joyce's 1922 novel Ulysses was obscene. In deciding it was not, Judge John M. Woolsey opened the door to importation and publication of serious works of literature that used coarse language or involved sexual subjects.

The Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship, better known as the Williams Committee, was a 1970s British Home Office committee chaired by Professor Bernard Williams. The task of the committee was to "review the laws concerning obscenity, indecency and violence in publications, displays and entertainments in England and Wales, except in the field of broadcasting, and to review the arrangements for film censorship in England and Wales".

Steven Toushin is an American producer and distributor of gay pornographic and BDSM films who has operated adult theaters and sex clubs since 1970. Toushin owned and managed the Bijou Theater in Chicago, the oldest gay adult theater and sex club in the United States and www.bijouworld.com. Toushin has produced multiple underground and classic pornographic films and published several books on the matter. He has been a defendant in the United States justice system continuously from 1969 until the present; he has defended himself and his companies in twenty-one obscenity cases including two federal obscenity trials; and has suffered thirty-five personal arrests and over 200 busts to his businesses.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is a law in the United Kingdom criminalising possession of what it refers to as "extreme pornographic images". The law came into force on 26 January 2009. The legislation was brought in following the murder of Jane Longhurst by a man who was said at the time of his trial to have had "extreme pornography" in his possession at the time of the death. The law has been more widely used than originally predicted, raising concerns as to whether the legislation is being used for prosecutions beyond the scope originally envisaged by parliament.

An obscenity is any utterance or act that strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time. It is derived from the Latin obscēnus, obscaenus, "boding ill; disgusting; indecent", of uncertain etymology. Such loaded language can be used to indicate strong moral repugnance and outrage, in expressions such as "obscene profits" and "the obscenity of war". As a legal term, it usually refers to graphic depictions of people engaged in sexual and excretory activity, and related utterances of profanity.

Prajapati(প্রজাপতি), a novel by Bengali author Samaresh Basu caused sensation with its publication. It was first published in 1967 in the Sharodiyo Desh special, a well known Bengali monthly magazine, a presentation of the Ananda Publishers. This novel is about a young boy who is used as the premises to understand not only his background but of the society at large. It was a young lawyer named Amal Mitra who first filed a charge of obscenity against the author Samaresh Basu and the publisher Shitangsukumar Dasgupta on 2 February 1968 for the novel Prajaproti. Later the Government of West Bengal supported Amal Mitra and spoke against Prajapoti. The Lower Court gave the verdict that the book was indeed obscene and had no literary value whatsoever. The High Court went on to uphold the just mentioned verdict. After a long time of almost seventeen years, Prajapoti got rid of the stigma 'banned' after a verdict given by Supreme Court of India in its favour. Reportedly, Prajapati had been published by Ananda Publishers as a hard cover book before the charge of obscenity had been made against it. In its second edition in 1985 soon after the verdict had been overturned it made record sales. The 11th edition of Projapoti states that the first edition had printed 8800 copies but from the second through the tenth edition, the sales went up to 48,000 copies!

United States obscenity law deals with the regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity and therefore not protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the United States, discussion of obscenity typically relates to defining what pornography is obscene, as well as to issues of freedom of speech and of the press, otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Issues of obscenity arise at federal and state levels. State laws operate only within the jurisdiction of each state, and there are differences among such laws. Federal statutes ban obscenity and child pornography produced with real children. Federal law also bans broadcasting of "indecent" material during specified hours.

<i>R v Penguin Books Ltd</i> 1960 UK court case on obscenity laws

R v Penguin Books Ltd was the public prosecution in the United Kingdom of Penguin Books under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for the publication of D. H. Lawrence's 1928 novel Lady Chatterley's Lover. The trial took place over six days, in No 1 court of the Old Bailey, between 20 October and 2 November 1960 with Mervyn Griffith-Jones prosecuting, Gerald Gardiner counsel for the defence and Laurence Byrne presiding. The trial was a test case of the defence of public good provision under section 4 of the Act which was defined as a work "in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other objects of general concern".

R v Walker was an English Crown Court case that was a test of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. It was the first such prosecution involving written material in nearly two decades and set a precedent in use of the act to prosecute web fiction. In October 2008, the defendant, civil servant Darryn Walker was charged with publishing an obscene story contrary to Section 2(1). It appeared on an internet site. A newspaper sparked the prosecution as it involved a real person fiction erotic horror story about the murder of the members of British pop group Girls Aloud. The case was abruptly abandoned on its first day and the defendant was cleared of all charges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 is a statutory instrument of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that applies regulations to R18-rated pornography that is available through video on demand or other streaming platforms. Prior to the regulations coming into force, neither Ofcom nor the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) had jurisdiction over such content. In force from 1 December 2014, these regulations were made by the Secretary of State in exercise of the powers conferred by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Myles Jackman</span> English lawyer

Myles Jackman is an English lawyer who specialises in defending cases related to pornography.

Nichi Hodgson is a British journalist, broadcaster, and author. She was one of the first British journalists to court-report via Twitter, covering the 2012 obscenity trial, R v Peacock.

Nigel John Richardson is a British human rights lawyer who serves as a deputy district judge. He was appointed to that office in May 2009. As a lawyer, Richardson is known for representing victims of human rights abuses in high-profile criminal cases with international element.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Hodgson, Nichi (6 January 2012). "Michael Peacock's acquittal is a victory for sexual freedom". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Beaumont, Peter & Hodgson, Nichi (7 January 2012). "Obscenity law in doubt after jury acquits distributor of gay pornography". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 "'Sleazy Michael' wins obscenity trial over fisting DVDs". The Week. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jackman, Myles (6 January 2012). "Obscenity trial: the law is not suitable for a digital age". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "Not guilty verdict in DVD obscenity trial". BBC. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Green, David Allen (5 January 2012). "Fisting on Trial". New Statesman. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Hodgson, Nichi (9 January 2012). "Obscenity trial shows up outdated law". Law Gazette. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  8. 1 2 "Obscene publication laws guidance to be reviewed". Solicitors Journal. 6 January 2012. Archived from the original on 12 March 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  9. 1 2 "Obscenity trial makes waves in the UK". Storyful. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  10. ↑ "Obscenity trial ends". 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.