James and Carolyn Scarlett owners of Tower Productions, have won an important legal
case against HM Customs & Excise who arrested them over the importation and
distribution of naturist books and videos - although the Scarlett's were subsequently
released without charges being made.The case began in April 1997 when staff at the London Overseas Mail Office intercepted
a review copy, sent from Australia, of a Charles MacFarland video, Naturist France 2 - La
Borde. HM Customs then mounted a raid on the Scarlett's home and seized over 200 videos -
including master tapes from Tower's own productions - and 60 books.
The Scarlett's appealed to prevent Customs carrying out a 'Destruction Order' - under
which Customs have the formal power to destroy the seized material - and began the lengthy
search for justice in the courts. After some months Customs returned most of the items but
retained as the MacFarland video La Borde, Richard West's Canada Naturally - The Book, one
of Tower's own productions A Naturist's Provence - Part Two and the book Elizabeth's Dream
by Julia Free Hand. Customs justified their actions on the grounds that 'the videos and
books were indecent'.
Under the Protection of Children Act (1978) - a hastily cobbled together piece of
legislation passed on a tidal wave of hysteria after several 'child abuse' scandals - one
aspect of 'indecency' in UK law, a term which has a very long history, became vaguely
defined as any picture of a naked child under the age of sixteen. Possession of such
pictures can result in a criminal charge. Customs have stated in the past that while
'stand alone' pictures of a naked child may not be indecent 'if there is a sufficient
concentration of naked children' they may be classed as indecent. The seized videos and
books feature pictures of naked children in naturist contexts.
The Scarlett's were well advised legally and conducted their case without overt
criticism of HM Customs and agreed Customs had a 'generally difficult job to do'. Instead,
they argued forcefully the children in the videos and books were in a naturist context,
shots of children swimming and playing in groups did not constitute 'concentration' and
therefore the products did not come under the category of 'indecent material'.
On the 7th July at Cheltenham Magistrates Court three magistrates - two men and one
woman - agreed with the Scarlett's that there was nothing indecent in any of the videos or
books and awarded costs of £1,400 ($2,500) against Customs and ordered the return of the
material.
Success in the courts against HM Customs is rare and the Tower victory resulted in
prominent nation-wide coverage in all newspapers including the London daily heavies The
Times, and The Daily Telegraph, and in all of the mid-range tabloids. A Customs
representative was widely quoted in the national press as saying; "The magistrates
have ruled and we will abide by that."
Although Tower's victory does not set a case law precedent, magistrates in other parts
of the country may well be persuaded to take note of their Cheltenham counterparts
decision when subsequent victims of Customs intolerance and muddled legislation are
brought before them.
In recent months Customs elsewhere in the country have seized copies of the imported
Spanish naturist magazine Todo Naturismo and copies of the Bienvenidos al Naturismo video
produced by Luis Cortes and The Virtual Naturist Company in Spain. A couple of minor
celebrities are also facing indecency charges relating to pictures of naked children
downloaded from the Internet found on their hard drives when their computers were taken in
for repair.
Meanwhile, James and Carolyn are pleased with the decision and rightly celebrated their
victory as an important one for all UK naturists. James Scarlett told Starkers magazine;
"The decision benefits the naturist community in the UK because it contributes
towards weakening any persecution or prosecution of families taking or being in possession
of innocent pictures of their naked kids and friends. From our point of view as producers
and distributors of naturist material the outcome is important as the two precepts under
which Customs formed their opinion have been shown to have little merit. Firstly, the
assumption that pictures of naked children under 16 years of age are indecent per se and,
secondly, that a 'concentration' of naked children under the age of 16 in pictures or on
video necessarily constitutes indecency.
As a result of our victory through the decision of the Cheltenham magistrates' it is
believed that the legal department at HM Customs are 'actively reviewing' the way they
approach similar cases."
