Video cassettes not documents — counsel

Press, 3 May 1984, Page 5

Video cassettes not documents — counsel

The hearing in the District Court of charges brought against two men and a woman, alleging breaches of the Indecent Publications Act in relation to the filming and screening of a pornographic video film, was adjourned yesterday at the completion of the prosecution case. Judge Bisphan reserved his decision until May 25 on submissions made by defence counsel, Mr D. I. Jones, that there was no case for the three defendants to answer. Mr Jones contended that in law video tapes were not defined as documents, and that they did not constitute printing within the meaning of the act.

The three defendants, a managing director, a foreman, and a masseuse, were granted continued interim suppression of their names. Each denied the 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 an indecent document, a video cassette, to a person under 18 years, and exhibiting the video cassette in a public place when he knew it to be an indecent document.

Mr N. W. Williamson appeared for the Crown. The hearing began on Tuesday. In evidence yesterday, Detective M. W. Manson

said he executed search warrants on business premises occupied by the director in November, last year, after the police had received information about the alleged showing of pornographic videos at the premises.

Thirty-six video films were found on the premises and all were seized by the police. Eighteen of the tapes were retained, and 18 subsequently returned to the director because they were considered to be of “acceptable” content. Mr Manson said one of the tapes appeared to be locally made. The two other defendants were featured in it.

Mr Jones then said that the defence acknowledged that the document, and what it depicted, was indecent for the purposes of the prosecution.

He asked that the evidence describing what was on the tape be suppressed. The Judge granted interim suppression.

The court went into chambers for the screening of sections of the video tape.

Mr Manson said he spoke to the director on December 1. This defendant confirmed his previous comment, made on the day the tapes were seized, that he knew tapes which had been stored in a safe contained pornography, and that these were for his own use.

They were never shown when the premises were open to the public. To questions as to

whether he had made one , film on the premises featuring the two other defendants, the director said he had nothing to say and the detective should refer the question to his solicitor. Detective R. D. Hendry said he interviewed the woman defendant, who admitted having appeared in the video with another defendant. The third defendant (the director) had filmed the scenes.

She said she never received any reward for doing the film and thought it was going to be destroyed afterwards. The director had told her that the film would not be shown to anybody. She was very surprised that he kept the film and the police got hold of it.

Detective Sergeant J. W. Lyall said he interviewed the other male defendant, who admitted being one of the persons in the film.

He said the film had been made a long time ago, on a Sunday before the director began opening to the public on Sundays.

Asked whose idea the film was, he said it had been “a bit of mucking around really.”

He had not viewed the film, and thought there was no harm in it. Mr Jones submitted at the close of the Crown’s case that there was no case to answer in law. He submitted that the tapes were not documents, or constituted printing, within the meaning of the act.