Pornographic video charges defended

Press, 2 May 1984, Page 4

Pornographic video charges defended

A company manager, a foreman, and a masseuse were alleged in the District Cout yesterday to have been involved in breaches of the Indecent Publications Act over the filming and screening of a pornographic video cassette.

Two of the defendants are alleged to have been depicted in the film engaging in sex scenes and the other defendant was said to have produced the video. Seven of the eight Crown witnesses had given evidence when Judge Bisphan adjourned the case to today for completion. Mr N. W. Williamson appears for the Crown, and Mr D. I. Jones for the three defendants, who were granted continued interim suppression of their names. Each denied a charge of printing an indecent document, an untitled video cassette, knowing it to be indecent, on January 30 last year.

The managing director also denied two charges relating to August 18 last year. They were of exhibiting to a girl, aged 16 years, a document — a video cassette — containing copies of films titled “Tangerine” and “Fantasm,” indecent to a person of the age of the girl complainant; and knowing it

to be an indencent document, exhibited the video cassette containing the two films in a public place. Mr Williamson, opening the Crown’s case, said the Crown alleged that the video film was shown in premises to which the public had entry and was in fact present. On December 1 last year police executed a search warrant on the premises, under provisions of the Indecent Publications Act and found 36 video cassettes. Twenty-four were stored on a shelf and the director told police he showed these when television programmes finished.

The other 12 were found in an unlocked safe and the director allegedly acknowledged these were pornographic but said they were for his own use and only shown after the public had left.

Four of the cassettes were found to contain hardcore pornography. One of these showed various sexual acts including intercourse and oral sex. The male and female shown in these scenes were alleged to be the other two defendants.

On playing this locally made film police were able to identify the director’s

voice in the background, directing the male and female, Mr Williamson said.

Police inquiries showed that the film had been made early last year on a Sunday morning. On December 12 police searched the director’s home and business premises and seized video recording equipment. Police obtained evidence that in August, 1983, two women, members of the public, saw a video cassette film and excerpts included a woman performing oral sex on a male.

A number of patrons and staff were present at the time, the Crown alleged. The two women, one aged 16, were upset and left the premises soon afterwards.

When questioned about the matter the director told police he knew some of the films contained pornography but claimed that they were for his own use and not for exhibiting. Mr Williamson said that there were three issues in the case. They were whether the video tape was a document within the meaning of the Indecent Publications Act, whether the document was “printed,” and whether it was indecent.

Mr Williamson said that the act had been devised before the technology of video recordings had been contemplated by the legislators.

However, in previous court cases video tapes had been held to be documents within the meaning of the act. He also submitted that the electromagnetic process by which the tapes were filmed, to project impressions through the aid of a television set, constituted printing within the meaning of the act.