Justice oppose "disproportionate interference"
We agree that the possession of "extreme pornographic material" as defined in clause 113 may be both extremely distasteful and, in some cases, the rightful subject of criminal sanction.
We acknowledge that the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows for regulation of such material, including to protect public health or morals, and to protect the rights of others.
In particular, we note that the proposed definition of "extreme pornographic material" includes a great deal of material whose manufacture and distribution is already prohibited by the criminal law, e.g. the production of a snuff film (involving "an act which threatens .... a person's life" within the meaning of clause 113(6)(a)) would already constitute a criminal offence.
However, to the extent that clause 113 goes beyond the possession of material whose production and distribution is already unlawful, we question the empirical foundation for the government's proposal to criminalize such material.
The basis for the proposal appears to be a speculative causal connection between the possession of such material and a propensity to commit violent crime, particularly sexual offences.
In our view, such a claim is not supported by evidence sufficient to justify the sanction of the criminal law.
We are, moreover, concerned that the breadth of the definition of an "extreme image" in clause 113(6) - while legitimately covering much that is already illegal - also includes much that is arguably innocuous (e.g. the simulated depiction of an act "likely to result .... in serious injury" (clause 113(6)(b)).
Accordingly, we are concerned that such an over-inclusive definition may constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to free expression under Article 10 ECHR.
February 2007
For Justice's full report click here.
What can you do ?
For more details of the legislation and opposition to it read this brief.
If you would like to contribute in any way to opposing this legislation,
contact us.
If you are a journalist or a researcher and would like to cover all sides of the
debate, see previous coverage in the media and
contact us.
To make a donation, click here.
Stay out of the bedroom
" The criminal law is drafted with great care, but sometimes its specific wording can trap victims and sentencers alike into facing unintended and unacceptable consequences. "
Jack Straw, opening for the Government in the House of Commons debate on this legislation in October 2007.
QC's conclusion "real concerns"
"In conclusion, I consider that the legislation as proposed gives rise to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual's rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention."
QC Rabinder Singh's Legal Opinion