The Home Office propose....

"....to strengthen the criminal law in respect of possession of a limited category of extreme material featuring adults. This will mirror the arrangements already in place in respect of child pornography."

Sadly, the Home Office "do not yet have sufficient evidence from which to draw any definite conclusions as to the likely long term impact of this kind of material on individuals generally, or on those who may already be predisposed to violent or aberrant sexual behaviour."

So British Ministers fly by the seat of their pants, isolated, as they "are not aware of any western jurisdiction which prohibits simple possession of extreme material." [55] Never fear, they are confident "the Strasbourg court will find our proposal compatible with Article 10 (freedom of expression) or Article 8 (private life) if that is raised." [57]

Pity they don't say why they think that. Our QC disagrees.

Odd too that in Scotland their Law Commission is asking if the consensual infliction of non-minor injuries done for sexual purpose must always be deemed to be socially unnacceptable.

To be more explicit.....

"By extreme we [the Home Office] mean material which is violent and abusive, featuring activities which are illegal in themselves and where, in some cases, participants may have been the victims of criminal offences. We believe most people would find this material abhorrent."

Indeed they might. But ban it, if consensual and causing no harm ? A slippery slope.

"We mean violence in respect of which a prosecution of grievous bodily harm could be brought." [41]

The government can't even persuade other governments. "The chances in the short term of achieving an effective international agreement covering publication of extreme pornographic material are limited." [56]

Shame really. The British are left gnawing at gnats alone. "It is believed that in view of the nature of this material there would only be a small number of proceedings and the cost would be de minimus". [Regulatory Impact Assessment 4]

So why change the law ? Under the Obscene Publications Act, for this material it "would be illegal to publish, sell or import....but it is not currently an offence to possess it". "Simple possession of an obscene article is not an offence." [12]

But there's a catch. Consider this supple civil service logic - it could have come straight out of Yes Minister. The Home Office "consider that the test of obscenity for a possession offence would probably have to be defined by reference to whether it would deprave or corrupt the person possessing it. Hence the degree of vulnerability of the person possessing the material might be a factor in determining its criminality and whether they were committing an offence. A young or naive person might be at more risk of conviction than a more hardened consumer of pornography, which seems a rather perverse consequence." [46]

Quite so. The solution ? Create "a new offence of simple possession of extreme pornographic material" outwith the Obscene Publications Act. "The offence would apply equally to offline pornography as it would to material accessed via the Internet or through other technologies such as mobile telephones." [36]

Naivity is not restricted to the young. The Home Office's "intention in proposing a possession offence is to try to break the demand/supply cycle." The sound you can hear from California is laughter.

Source: On the possession of extreme pornographic material. HMSO August 2005

Brackets [] refer to the paragraph number in that document. Unbracketed quotes come from the executive summary.

To read the original, choose either an html copy or the Home Office's original pdf.

Or read our Quick Reference summary of the arguments used.