Interfact Ltd and Another v Liverpool City Council: Admn 23 May 2005

The defendants, operators of licensed sex shops, appealed convictions for offences under the Act. The shops had supplied videos rated R*18 by mail order from the shops. The Trading Standards Officer said this did not satisfy the requirement that such films be supplied only in a licensed sex shop. The district judge had held that supply in this context meant the direct hand to hand transfer of the video within the shop.
Held: The shops’ appeals failed. The court would not draw fine distinctions. The purpose of the Act was to prevent unlawful distribution of such material: ‘the requirement that the event of supply is to be confined to a licensed sex shop gives heightened protection, reducing the opportunity for the material to be viewed by children. ‘ and ‘the ambit of the restriction on supply in section 7(2)(c) should be interpreted with a view to that purpose being achieved. It seems plain to us that the restriction, requiring that a video work is not to be supplied other than in a licensed sex shop, is designed to eliminate a range of circumstances carrying the risk that such material might come to be viewed by persons under 18 . . ‘ It was submitted that the restriction on distribution would inhibit the defendants’ rights of free expression.
Maurice Kay LJ, Newman J
[2005] EWHC 995 (Admin), Times 31-May-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 3118
Video Recordings Act 1984 12(1)
England and Wales
CitedRees v Munday QBD 1974
The defendant advertised in a motor trade journal, to sell a vehicle, which was ‘in first class condition throughout.’ In the same advertisement was the reference to it being of ’12 yard’ capacity.’ The Act applied differently according to whether a . .
CitedRegina v Delgado CACD 1984
The court considered the meaning of ‘supply’ under the 1971 Act: ‘Thus we are driven back to considering the word ‘supply’ in its context. The judge himself relied upon the dictionary definition, which is a fairly wide one. This court has been . .
CitedRegina v Maginnis HL 5-Mar-1987
M was stopped by the police. They found cannabis in his car. He said he was looking after it for a friend. He was accused of intending to supply it.
Held: ‘The word ‘supply’ in its ordinary natural meaning conveys the idea of furnishing or . .
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Brent London Borough Council QBD 16-Feb-1993
An employee’s actual knowledge of and information about the age of a video purchaser could properly be imputed to his employer company. . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedZana v Turkey ECHR 25-Nov-1997
Turkey – prison sentence imposed by Diyarbakir National Security Court on account of a statement to journalists (Articles 168 and 312 of the Criminal Code) – accused unable to appear at hearing in that court (Article 226 – 4 of the Code of Criminal . .
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
CitedWingrove v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1996
The applicant had been refused a certification certificate for his video ‘Visions of Ecstasy’ on the basis that it infringed the criminal law of blasphemy. The Court found that the offence was prescribed by law and served the legitimate aim of . .
CitedRegina v Northallerton Magistrates, ex parte Dove QBD 17-Jun-1999
The defendant having provided sufficient evidence of his means, a court awarding prosecution costs, where the other penalty is a fine, should not allow these to be completely disproportionate to the fine. Where a defendant failed to provide . .

Cited by:
See AlsoInterfact Ltd v Liverpool City Council Admn 29-Jun-2010
The claimant had been convicted in 2005 of an offence under the 1984 Act. It later became clear that the Act failed properly to implement a European Directive and was unenforceable. The company now sought leave to appeal out of time. The case was . .
CitedRegina v Budimir and Another CACD 29-Jun-2010
The defendants sought leave to appeal out of time saying that their convictions had been under the 1984 Act which was later found to have been unenforceable for failure to comply with notification requirements under European law. The 1984 Act had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.225184