A NEW APPROACH TO THE CONTROL OF OBSCENITY
| Author | Graham Zellick |
| Date | 01 May 1970 |
| Published date | 01 May 1970 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1970.tb01273.x |
A
NEW
APPROACH
TO
THE
CONTROL
OF
OBSCENITY
AT
Leeds Assizes in February
1969
a publisher and printer was
sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and heavily fined for publish-
ing the Victorian classic
My
Secret
Life
by
“
Walter
”
and for
possessing for gain a book already returned to him by the police
on
the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions.‘ But as
Mr.
C.
H.
Rolph has recently written:
“
Prison is not the place-
whoever else may be justifiably therefor someone who has done
no
more than publish a book.’’
Mr.
Rolph suggests the abolition
of the criminal offence of publishing an obscene article, to be
replaced by proceedings for forfeiture only, as under section
8
of
the Obscene Publications Act
1959.
This would certainly be an
improvement, but not a particularly satisfactory one.
Writing
on
the control of obscenity in
1965,
Mr.
David Williams
thought the only possible alternative to the criminal prosecution
was a system of prior censorship of some sort. This he rightly
rejected since pre-censorship has,
on
the whole, been for long
dis-
credited, although
it
survives in the case of the cinema and has
only recently been abolished in the theatre.
‘‘
The present position
of the law then,” concluded
Mr.
Williams,
‘(
though haphazardly
reached, is not capable of substantial change at this time.’ya
It
is here that
I
cannot agree. Aghast at a law which sends publishers
to prison
or
subjects them to enormous fines,
Mr.
Alan Watkins,
a journalist, recently wrote:
“
One solution would be for the law
to be altered
so
that proceedings
in
rem
could be taken against a
book.”
Mr.
Watkins fortuitously proposed a system-it has been
termed
‘‘
subsequent restraint ”-which operates in a number of
American states and which seems preferable to the ordinary criminal
proceedings we have here.
This
article, then, presupposes the existence of legislation
suppressing obscene material-legislation which
is
likely to
continue
for some time yet s-and suggests a means of implementing this
control without having to subject publishers to the rigours of the
normal processes of the criminal law.
1
In
November 1969-after serving ten months of
his
sentence-the publisher
*
Books
in
the
Dock
(London, 1969),
p.
130.
8
“
The Control of Obscenity-:
”
[1965] Crim.L.R. 522, 531.
4
‘I
A
Slight Case
of
Obscenity,
New Statesman,
February 14, 1969, p. 210.
5
In
The Obscenity Laws
(London, 1969), an
Art6
Council
working
party recom-
mended the abolition
of
all obscenity legislation, but the Home Secretary ha8
rejected this recommendation.
He
has, however, admitted that the law
is
in
need
of
reform and is prepared
to
coo-operate in trying
to
put it right:
H.C.
Deb.,
Vol.
793, cols. 1538-1539 (December 18,
1969).
appealed successfully:
The Sunday Times,
December
7.
1969.
289
To continue reading
Request your trial