DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

THESE collections of limericks and anecdotes are largely puerile
and harmless and although the chestnut tree has been well
shaken to assemble them they would, for the most part, pass
muster in the smoking room. There is, however, a large enough
quantum in each of material which we do not believe to be
socially acceptable to lead us to declare the books to be
indecent.

In this decision we follow the sense of our decision on Why
was he Born so Beautiful and Other Rugby Songs, dated 15
July 1968, gazetted 25 July 1968, No. 46, p. 1254, subsequently
numbered 75, where we said "The question for the Tribunal is
not whether footballers should amuse themselves by bawling
these songs off the field, but whether their text should be given
a wider circulation in what may be called the decent licence
of print; and the Tribunal decides that it should not". Similarly
with these paperbacks we do not consider it to be in the public
interest to extend the currency of the more objectionable
material included.

The Tribunal classifies them as indecent.

R. S. V. SIMPSON, Chairman.

24 March 1971.

No. 265-280

Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

IN the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in
the matter of an application by the Secretary for Justice for
decisions in respect of the magazines Figure Photography
Quarterly 1968, Vol. 55, Photographs the Figure No. 1, The
Queens from King No. 1, Yearbook of Queens Vol. 817,
Dapper Vol. 5, No. 3, Swank Vol. 16, No. 8, Flirt 'n Skirt
Annual No. 2, Flirt No. 18, Girlie Fun No. 13, Skirt No. 13,
My Love Story No. 8, 9, and 11, and in the matter of an appli-
cation by the Comptroller of Customs for decisions in respect
of the magazines Nude Love in Paradise, Nude Love for Two,
Skirt No. 22.

We are required to classify under the Act the above maga-
zines which we have listed in four groups:
Group (a) Figure Photography Quarterly 1968, Vol. 55.
Photographs the Figure No. 1.
Group (b) The Queens from King No. 1.
Yearbook of Queens Vol. 817.
Dapper Vol. 5, No. 3.
Nude Love in Paradise.
Nude Love for Two.
Group (c) Swank Vol. 16, No. 8.
Flirt 'n Skirt Annual No. 2.
Flirt No. 18.
Girlie Fun No. 13.
Skirt No. 13.
Skirt No. 22.
Group (d) My Love Story No. 8, 9, and 11.

There was no appearance by either applicant or by any of
the publishers or their agents. Accordingly no submissions were
made.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

THE magazines listed in the first three groups are either of the
"girlie" or of the nudist type, comprising in the main nude
or semi-nude illustrations of little artistic merit, but not all
of them intended to be provocative. The illustrations are, in
some cases, interspersed with short features and stories, mostly
slender in content and occasionally frankly prurient, but some-
times more generally acceptable in tone and purpose.

The Tribunal has, on a number of occasions, adjudicated
on similar publications, particularly in our decisions of 15 July
1968, commonly called the Waverley decisions and now
numbered 93-103. These were published in the New Zealand
Gazette of 25 July 1968. They classified publications of these
types into three categories according to certain criteria. These
criteria were also applied in Classifications No. 157 and 158 of
12 September 1969. We now apply these criteria to the publica-
tions before us, and assign classifications accordingly.

We classify the magazines listed in Group (a) above as
falling within the first category and therefore not indecent. In
respect of these two publications we repeat what the Tribunal
said in the earlier judgment referred to, that we do not believe
the Act requires that young people should be kept in ignorance
of the adult form.

The magazines listed in Group (b) above we classify in the
second category, and we declare them to be indecent in the
hands of persons under 18 years of age. We consider that in
the hands of mature persons publications of this kind are
generally not unacceptable, but some restriction on their dis-
play will best give effect to the intention of the Act.

The magazines listed in Group (c) we place in the third
category and we classify them as indecent.

Group (d) comprises three magazines of a different type.
They are published for the stories they contain and the few
illustrations of the text are generally quite unexceptionable. The
stories are of no literary merit and are, in the main, flimsily
contrived accounts of successions of sexual experiences. We do
not consider them likely to corrupt mature persons but the
apparent intention of the producers to present sex as some-
thing to be taken neither seriously nor naturally does appear to
bring the magazines within the scope of the Act. It can
scarcely be in the public interest that they should be published
to impressionable young people.

The Tribunal classifies them as indecent in the hands of
persons under 18 years of age.

R. S. V. SIMPSON, Chairman.

24 March 1971.

No. 281

Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

IN the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in
the matter of an application by Calder and Boyars Ltd., Lon-
don, by their duly authorised agents Swan, Davies, McKay and
Co., for a decision in respect of the book Last Exit to Brook-
lyn by Hubert-Selby Jnr. Published by Calder and Boyars Ltd.
Distributed by Corgi Books. Paperback price $1.70.

Mr Heron appeared on behalf of the publishers, Calder and
Boyars Ltd., of London.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

Last Exit to Brooklyn has already been considered by the
Tribunal, in a hard-covered edition. On 1 November 1967 that
edition was held to be indecent except in the hands of adults
engaged in work or research in sociological and related fields.
This classification, subsequently numbered 52, was gazetted on
9 November 1967, No. 7, p. 1938. The present application is
in respect of a paperback edition emanating from the same
publisher, Calder and Boyars Ltd., and described as the "Post-
trial edition, complete and unexpurgated". There is an intro-
duction by Anthony Burgess detailing the history of the
original edition in the English Courts.

The book now before us was submitted by Messrs Swan,
Davies, McKay and Co. on behalf of the publishers; Mr R. A.
Heron appeared and made submissions in support of the
application.

Mr Heron invited the Tribunal to take into account the
passage of time since the decision on the hard-cover edition,
and to consider whether public standards might not have
changed sufficiently for a less restrictive classification to be
appropriate in this case. He directed our attention also to the
circumstances of the prosecution of the publishers of the book
in England.

Under the relevant legislation it was not open to the English
Court to apply a restrictive classification of the kind contem-
plated under the in rem procedure provided by our Indecent
Publications Act 1963. In England the proceedings were
criminal proceedings under section 2 of the Obscene Publica-
tions Act 1959. Section 2 is the section under which defendants
may claim a jury trial, and it was by a jury that these
defendants were found guilty. The decision, however, was
reversed by the Court of Criminal Appeal--not on grounds of
being wrong in substance, but because of inadequacies in the
trial judge's summing-up and direction to the jury. In the event,
as Mr Heron very fairly pointed out, the book has been neither
condemned nor exonerated by the English Courts, and the
decision is of little persuasive force in New Zealand.

We are, however, inclined to accept Mr Heron's contention
that in terms of our Act and at the present time the book,
even in paperback form, should not be classified as restrictively
as we classified it in 1967. At that time the Tribunal said:

Last Exit to Brooklyn describes life in a district of New
York where an underprivileged and frustrated population is
reduced to the extremes of lawlessness and vice. The dominant
effect of the book may well be one of revulsion which could
nevertheless evoke salutary compassion and concern; it has
the stamp of honesty and anger; such a document should not
be ignored.

Its proper use however is not as casual reading for the
general public because it deals almost exclusively and in
sickening detail with the grossest forms of evil. We therefore
classify this book as indecent except in the hands of adults
engaged in work or research in sociological and related
fields.

C