Our legal advice is that we cannot pass a DPP listed title uncut if it has any recent OPA convictions. We have been advised to take 'recent' convictions as meaning convictions within the last decade.

When a 'video nasty' is submitted we first establish whether it has any 'recent' convictions and - if so - we know that it has to be cut, regardless of whether it would be acceptable under our guidelines. Examples include Zombie Flesh Eaters, Tenebrae and Driller Killer, all of which have been convicted within the last ten years (Zombie Flesh Eaters as recently as 1994 under Section 2) and so cannot be passed uncut even if we feel they are in line with our guidelines.

If a video nasty has no recent convictions we simply consider whether or not it is acceptable under current guidelines. If it is, we can pass it uncut regardless of its historic convictions. Examples of this include Possession, Dead and Buried and The Bogeyman, all passed uncut recently.

However, even if a work has no recent convictions, it may still fall foul of our guidelines. An example of this is The Toolbox Murders, which has not been convicted since 1985 but contains material in breach of our sexual violence guidelines. This video was therefore cut.

Back From the Dead

A 2005 interview with Craig Lapper of the BBFC

See article from slasherama.com

Slasherama: Zombie Flesh Eaters finally makes its debut on uncut UK DVD on September 19, when it is released as part of Anchor Bay UK's Box Of The Banned. Did you expect Lucio Fulci's grisly, eye-popping gem to be passed uncut, this time around?

Craig Lapper: Yes. Last time we looked at the uncut version (in 1999) we made a couple of small cuts - to the eye gouging and to some flesh munching. These cuts were made largely because, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, the uncut version had been successfully prosecuted as obscene as recently as 1994.

Classifying something uncut that had been found obscene by a court as recently as five years ago raised problems for the BBFC, especially given that one of our terms of designation under the Video Recordings Act is to seek to avoid classifying obscene material. Our lawyers advised that, although we could pass it uncut if we felt standards had changed over the last 5 years, it might be safer to make some small trims. That way we could avoid classifying what the court had found obscene. However, if it hadn't been for that recent conviction we probably would have passed it uncut back in 1999.

Since 1999, BBFC policy has moved on somewhat. During the 2002 appeal against our decision to cut The Last House On The Left, we had cause to look in more detail at some of those recent obscenity convictions. We found that in many cases, including the 1994 case involving Zombie Flesh Eaters, the convictions had actually been obtained against huge batches of material (sold, for example, at film fairs) and that the defendant had simply pleaded Guilty, presumably because some of the other material he was selling was very clearly obscene. However, there was no evidence that a Jury had actually sat and watched Zombie Flesh Eaters or Last House On The Left and considered all the relevant issues. So, relying upon such convictions as proof of obscenity was unsatisfactory. After we changed our policy to be more sceptical about such convictions, it was clear that Zombie Flesh Eaters would probably be passed uncut if it were resubmitted.