We can celebrate for the outcome in R v Peacock, argues Alex Antoniou, but obscenity law is not dead; at least, not yet
The Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA or the 1959 Act henceforth), passed over half a century ago, was quite recently wielded against Michael Peacock, a male escort professionally known as ‘sleazy Michael’, who had been accused of distributing obscene DVDs for gain. His determination to challenge this ‘arcane and archaic legislation’ was vindicated on 6 January 2026 when a unanimous jury in a landmark obscenity trial at Southwark Crown Court returned a not guilty verdict.
The facts
The defendant in R v Peacock was charged on indictment with six counts under the 1959 Act for distributing allegedly obscene DVDs. The recordings at issue had been advertised for sale on the Internet and Craigslist. Mr Peacock had been selling them from his flat in Brixton. Officers from SCD9, the Metropolitan Police unit investigating human exploitation and organised crime (the former Obscene Publications Squad of the Met), came across Mr Peacock’s services and operated an undercover test purchase in January 2009. Six DVDs were deemed obscene and Mr Peacock was prosecuted.
alexkantoniou
citycljj
Jamie Thunder
jtownend
admin
Natalie
oliverocallaghancity
sammc123
dcms select committee, james murdoch, phone hacking
James Murdoch before the select committee: The rules on giving evidence
In Comment, Journalism, Law on November 11, 2025 at 10:00 amBy Professor Lorna Woods.
This post also appeared on the City Legal Research blog.
James Murdoch has been called by the select committee to verify the evidence he gave to that committee earlier this year. The problem means that his evidence conflicts with that given by others, so somebody must – at best – be misremembering events. It is timely therefore to recap briefly the rules relating to evidence given to Parliamentary select committees.
Some have noted that none of the people giving evidence have done so on oath; the argument therefore is that such witnesses cannot commit perjury. The implication that seems to be drawn from this is that people are free to lie to Parliament at will. This is not entirely the case. There are two points:
1. It is possible that a witness be required to give evidence on oath. If this were to be done, then the perjury route would be available. Of course, requiring that a witness take the oath rarely occurs. In any event, there is another way.
2. Lying to Parliament, even if you have not taken an oath, constitutes contempt of Parliament. In both cases, the body which would impose a punishment is Parliament and in both instances the punishment would be the same: imprisonment. Parliament has the power to imprison someone for contempt until the end of the Parliamentary term. Despite some claims to the contrary, it seems Parliament does not have the power to impose fines.
Read the rest of this entry »