Queen's Bench Divisional Court: Wright v Commissioners for Customs and Excise
Where
video tapes and magazines were seized by customs because they were obscene or indecent, it
was not a breach of European law to forfeit them as member states of the Community were
entitled to decide for themselves what prohibitions were justified on the ground of public
morality.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Maurice Kay) so
held on February 13 when dismissing an appeal by way of case stated of Mark Richard Wright
from the dismissal by Warwick Crown Court (Judge Pyke and justices) on December 21, 1995
of his appeal from the order of Solihull Justices on July 11, 1995 forfeiting the imported
goods.
Lord Justice Kennedy stated that article 30 of the EC Treaty prevented restrictions on
imports between member states and that importing goods from one member state to the United
Kingdom for private purposes came within the definition of trade under article 30.
However, article 36 did not preclude restrictions on imports on tha ground of public
morality or public policy and that was confirmed in R v Henn, (1981).
If the goods came within section 1(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 they could
not be lawfully traded in this country and article 36 could be invoked to preserve the
prohibition on importation in section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876.
Although the items were imported for private use, there was a public morality purpose
to be served in protecting the less innocent from further corruption and the addict from
increasing an addiction.
What happens if the undie sifters decide to take offence at porn legally purchased in Europe? Answer you're stuffed and the customs can take it away for their own pleasures. Unless Mark Wright takes his case to European Court then the following is where we are at.
