Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 July 1979 |
| Author | John Wood |
| Published date | 01 July 1979 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X7905200312 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
SIR
JOHN
WOOD,
C.B.E., LL.M.,
The University
of
Sheffield.
Legal Correspondent
of
the POLICE
JOURNAL
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
BLASPHEMY
R. v. Lemon [1979] 2 W.L.R. 281 House of Lords
This well publicised case arose from a poem published in
"Gay
News" which led to a private prosecution by Mary Whitehouse. The
accused was editor and publisher of the magazine. The jury, by a
majority of 10 to 2, found that the poem was blasphemous. Lemon
was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, suspended and was
fined. The appeal concerned the necessary mens rea in blasphemy. The
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The House of Lords took the
same view, with two dissenting opinions.
The point in issue, though obviously difficult, is easy to
summarise. The poem was held to be blasphemous, the accused
intended to publish it. The question was whether this was enough to
establish guilt or whether the prosecution had also to prove
that
the
accused intended to shock or outrage, or published aware
that
such
shock and outrage were likely results. The trial judge had ruled that
blasphemy was an absolute offence and mens rea need not be
established.
It
was the opposite view on this that was urged at the
appeal.
Blasphemy is of course an old crime. It protects the established
religion in the same way that seditious libel protected the civil
authorities. The last case was R. v. Gott (1922) 16 Cr. App. R. 87 - a
brief report. There have been very few indeed this century, that is to
say since R. v. Ramsey &Foote (1893) 15 Cox. c.c.231.
It
followed
that all the judges had to look at the history of blasphemy since it
entered the common law jurisdiction in the seventeenth century.
It
is
not neccessary to report the discussion of those earliercases, decided
as they were against the background of a very different approach to
criminal law. It is interesting, however, to note the different opinions
of Ramsey &Foote. Lord Diplock sees Lord Coleridge C.l. in that
case in his summing up using words
that
show the crime "clearly
requires intent on the part of the accused himself to produce the
desired effect
...
"Lord Edmund Davies agrees whereas Lord
Scarman says
that
there never was any
doubt
about
intent in
that
case. So "mens rea not being an issue in the case I do not think it
legitimate to read the direction as an authority upon the nature of
"mens rea" required to establish the offence."
July 1979 279
To continue reading
Request your trial