Criminal

Importation of indecent videos of children - defendant's belief that videos subject to prohibition - no requirement to prove he knew videos contained indecent images of childrenR v Forbes (Giles): CA (Rose LJ, Alliott and Jackson JJ): 24 March 2000

The defendant was charged with two counts of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition or restriction on the importation of goods (imposed by s42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876), namely video cassettes containing indecent photographs of children, contrary to s179(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.He said that although the videos were named 'Spartacus' and 'The Godfather: Part II' he had been told they were actually 'The Exorcist' and 'Kidz', which he believed were prohibited in the United Kingdom.

(Those films are not in fact prohibited.) He was convicted.

He appealed against conviction on the grounds that proof was required of his knowledge of the character of the material imported beyond its mere indecency and that the prosecution had failed to prove that he knew that the videos contained indecent images of children under 16 years of age.Charles Salter (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.

Martin Field (instructed by the Solicitor, Customs & Excise) for the Crown.Held, dismissing the appeal, that it was sufficient in such a case for the prosecution to prove that the defendant knew that the goods being imported were goods subject to a prohibition; that it was not necessary that he should know the precise category of the goods the importation of which had been prohibited; and that, accordingly, the prosecution was not required to prove specifically that the defendant knew that the indecent videos which he had imported depicted children under 16.