Graduate Journal of Social GJSS Science R v Peacock: Landmark Trial Redefines Obscenity Law Alex Antoniou The acquittal of Michael Peacock, who was charged with distributing DVDs featuring male fisting, urination and sado-masochism, has cast doubt on the English obscenity law. The ‘deprave and corrupt’ test under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 has been controversial since its inception in England and Wales. One of the strengths of the 1959 Act is its ability for juries to rec- ognise changing moral standards in accordance with modern social values. While such content has been found in the past to be capable of debasing and destroying the moral purity of its likely audience, the question put before the jury in R v Peacock was if this is the case nowadays. For some, the not guilty verdict represents a victory for freedom of expression and the end of an era; for others, moral degeneration. This article provides a more perceptive view of the implications of the Peacock outcome. It argues that we have not seen the demise of obscenity yet. On the contrary, more insidious obscenity provi- sions have replaced the ‘archaic’ 1959 Act and more censorship laws with real teeth are likely to be just over the horizon. Keywords: Obscenity, pornography, fisting, urination, sado-masochism Introduction cated on 6 January 2012, when a The Obscene Publications Act unanimous jury in a landmark ob- 1959 (OPA or the 1959 Act hereaf- scenity trial returned a not guilty ver- ter1) passed over half a century ago, dict. was quite recently wielded against This paper builds on an interpre- Michael Peacock, a male escort tative and qualitative analysis of the professionally known as ‘sleazy principal legislation for the regula- Michael,’ who had been accused tion of sexually explicit content of of distributing obscene DVDs for any kind in England and Wales with gain. However, his determination to reference to primary and secondary challenge this ‘arcane and archaic sources. In light of notable cases in legislation’ (Richardson, cited in the past and the defendant’s acquit- Solicitors Journal 2012) was vindi- tal in the recent obscenity case of Graduate Journal of Social Science February 2013, Vol. 10, Issue 1 © 2013 by Graduate Journal of Social Science. All Rights Reserved. ISSN: 1572-3763 86 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1 R v Peacock (unreported, 6 January The Content of the Publications 2011, Southwark Crown Court, The recordings at issue featured London, UK), the paper explores hardcore gay sexual activities: First, how the obscenity test has been fisting, namely the practice of in- applied and developed since its in- serting the hand and arm into the ception with respect to both written vagina or anus. In Peacock, fisting and visual material. Furthermore, involved the insertion of five fingers the examination of the outcome of the fist into the rectum of another in Peacock and its implications is male. Many people have difficulty in complemented by a non-doctrinal understanding fisting as a specific approach, which relies on the in- form of sexual intercourse. It is ar- terpretation of up-to-date quantita- gued that, far from being perverse, tive data concerning the number of this practice is from a psychoanalyt- prosecutions in England and Wales ic perspective ‘erotically exciting in under the Obscene Publications Act just the same way as other sexual 1959 and its prospective successor practices are’ (Denman 2003, 194). (section 63 of the Criminal Justice Second, urolagnia [also called and Immigration Act 2008), with a ‘urophilia,’ ‘urophagia,’ ‘ondinism’ view to providing a more compre- and ‘undinism’ after Undine, a wa- hensive and well-balanced insight ter nymph, from the Latin, unda, into the true meaning of the verdict ‘wave’ (Money 1986)], namely the in Peacock. sexual arousal and interest in urine and the act of urination itself. The The Facts terms have been used to describe The defendant in Peacock was any erotic use of the urinary stream, charged on indictment with six which may or may not involve a counts under the 1959 Act for distrib- partner (Milner et al. 2008, 395). uting allegedly obscene DVDs. The Interest in urolagnia may take vari- recordings at issue had been ad- ous forms, including watching others vertised for sale on the Internet and urinate, urinating on others, being Craigslist. Mr. Peacock had been urinated on (aka ‘golden showers’ selling them from his flat in Brixton. or ‘water sports’) or even drinking Officers from SCD9, the Metropolitan urine (Greenberg et al. 2011, 506). Police unit investigating human ex- This sexual variation is often asso- ploitation and organised crime (the ciated with sadomasochistic activity former Obscene Publications Squad and represents a form of domina- of the Metropolitan Police), came tion (Steen and Price 1988, viii). In across Mr. Peacock’s services and Peacock, the DVDs involved men made an undercover test purchase urinating in their clothes, onto each in January 2009. Six DVDs were others’ bodies and drinking urine. deemed obscene and Mr Peacock Third, the recordings also fea- was prosecuted. tured BDSM, the acronym for bond- Antoniou: R v Peacock 87 age, domination, submission and close up of the chest followed; the masochism, but can also mean the recipient says ‘thank you Sir.’ In the combination of two related pairs of third scene, a man was hung upside the terms: ‘bondage and discipline’ down suspended from his feet and and ‘sadism and masochism.’ In was whipped on the chest; then, he Peacock, BDSM practices involved was tied upside down from a tree and hard whipping, the insertion of nee- his chest was hit with a riding crop. dles and urethral sounds, electri- Furthermore, in the fourth scene, a cal ‘torture,’ staged kidnapping and man was flogged on a rack; his tes- rape, whipping, as well as smacking ticles were hoisted in a chain with of saline-injected scrotums. his legs in a spreader bar. He was More specifically, the first clip, flogged on his chest and legs. The approximately 25 minutes long, fifth scene moved outside again de- consisted of a fisting scene, culmi- picting a man who was bullwhipped nating with a foot being inserted into on his back; some bleeding ensued. an anus and double fisting. The sec- Finally, the sixth scene returned in- ond one depicted a man in boxing side showing caning to the buttocks, gloves engaging in a threesome to needles and electrodes to nipples, the accompaniment of country mu- as well as urethral sounds to the pe- sic, some ballbusting (punching to nis. The final shot showed clothes the testicles and stomach), as well pegs attached in a row to the chest as simulated kidnapping. The third and nipples. clip involved multiple participants On the second day of the trial, engaging in fisting and anal play two additional clips were shown in with the penetrator masturbating the courtroom: they included a man whilst spitting into one recipient’s being tattooed in a chair, whilst be- anus. The fourth commenced with ing fisted and then penetrated with a warning specifying that the video a dildo. Following scenes showed should not be viewed, unless the a fully clothed man in a chair re- viewer is specifically interested in ceiving oral sex, whilst an unseen hardcore BDSM. The message of man behind them urinated into the the clip also specified that mutual mouth of the clothed man and over consent had been given and all par- his body. His face was pushed into ticipants were aged over 18. the urine, his penis gripped and his In the first scene of the fourth anus fingered. In the final scene, set clip, a man was being flogged on in woodland, a skinhead was rolling his back outdoors in the country- a cigarette and urinated into another side. His hands and feet were re- man’s mouth.2 strained, while red welts rose. The This is exactly the kind of ma- second scene, set in a dungeon, terial that the Crown Prosecution showed a man being flogged on the Service (CPS) and the police have chest and pinned against a wall. A long claimed was still considered 88 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1 obscene by the jury. More precisely, ily non-consensual, but also to a fair the CPS has devised a list of ‘ma- number of sexual activities that may terial most commonly prosecuted’ be entirely consensual. Consent is (CPS 2012) within the context of the a defence against criminal liability to English obscenity law. This is not an a charge of assault. In the absence exhaustive list though. As the CPS of some ‘good reason’ (Attorney- states, ‘it is impossible to define all General’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980) types of activity which may be suit- [1981] QB 715), for instance properly able for prosecution’ (CPS 2012). conducted games and sports, lawful The categories of material deemed chastisement or correction, reason- obscene consist of: able surgical interference etc, an 1. Sexual acts with an animal. assault cannot be rendered lawful 2. Realistic portrayals of rape. by virtue of consent, if it caused, or 3. Sadomasochistic material which was intended to cause, actual bod- goes beyond trifling and transient ily harm. Consent to the intentional infliction of injury. infliction of actual or grievous bodily 4. Torture with instruments. harm for satisfying sado-masochis- 5. Bondage (especially where gags tic sexual desires does not consti- are used with no apparent means tute a ‘good reason’ and therefore, of withdrawing consent). it will not be a valid defence for rea- 6. Dismemberment or graphic muti- sons of public policy: The House of lation. Lords judgment in R v Brown [1994] 7.