Volume 2, Mr Ireland invites the Tribunal to consider issuing a serial restriction order for those publications.

The Tribunal agrees with the Comptroller of Customs that there are some features of these publications which would be injurious to younger readers and accordingly classifies each of these publications as injurious in the hands of persons under the age of 18 years.

The Tribunal having now seen a number of the publications Fox Hunt and All Muscle are satisfied that Mr Ireland’s submission is well made and accordingly the Tribunal, in respect of the publications Fox Hunt and All Muscle, makes a serial restriction order in terms of section 15A of the Indecent Publications Act 1963 classifying both publications as indecent in the hands of persons under the age of 18 years.

Dated at Wellington this 4th day of August 1989.

R. R. KEARNEY, Chairman.

Indecent Publications Tribunal.

gs22676

Decision No. 49/89

Reference No.: IND 25/89

Before the Indecent Publications Tribunal

In the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in the matter of an application by the Comptroller of Customs for a decision in respect of the following publications:
Private, Issues 86, 87, 88.

Chairman: Judge R. R. Kearney.

Members: R. E. Barrington, A. J. Graham and S. C. Middleton.

Hearing at Wellington on the 5th day of July 1989.

Appearances: M. J. Wotherspoon for Comptroller of Customs, no appearance by or on behalf of importer.

Decision

These publications were privately imported through parcel post at Nelson on 16 March 1989 and were seized by the Collector of Customs. The importer having subsequently disputed forfeiture the publications were referred to the Tribunal for classification prior to the commencement of condemnation proceedings pursuant to the Customs Act 1966.

These publications are magazines which are produced in Sweden and apparently published 6 times per annum. The contents depict both single model and multiple model scenes of explicit sexual intimacy. Considerable emphasis is placed on genital exposure and the various aspects of sexual activity.

The Tribunal has over the last 15 months seen a number of these publications and in decisions 35/89 and 39/89 the Tribunal classified those particular publications as unconditionally indecent.

The latest issues are no different in their general content to those previously classified by the Tribunal and the Tribunal being satisfied that their content is injurious to the public good classifies each as unconditionally indecent. In addition the Tribunal having before it 3 consecutive volumes of the magazine and having as indicated seen previous copies within the preceding 18 months is satisfied that it is in the public interest that a serial order should be made and accordingly such an order is made under section 15A of the Indecent Publications Act 1963 classifying these magazines as unconditionally indecent.

Dated at Wellington this 4th day of August 1989.

R. R. KEARNEY, Chairman.

Indecent Publications Tribunal.

gs22677

Decision No. 50/89

Reference No.: IND 28/89

Before the Indecent Publications Tribunal

In the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in the matter of an application by the Comptroller of Customs for a decision in respect of the following publications:
Tightropes, No. 2, January 1983; Switch Hitting Sauna; Sperm Special (Collectors Edition); Hot Shots; Hot, Steamin’ Holes;

Chairman: Judge R. R. Kearney.

Members: R. E. Barrington, A. J. Graham and S. C. Middleton.

Hearing at Wellington on the 5th day of July 1989.

Appearances: M. J. Wotherspoon for Comptroller of Customs, no appearance by or on behalf of importer. Written submission received from G. A. Ireland, counsel for the Lawrence Publishing Company.

Decision

These publications were commercially imported through Auckland in April 1989 and were seized by the Collector of Customs. The importer having subsequently disputed forfeiture the publications were referred to the Tribunal for classification prior to the commencement of condemnation proceedings pursuant to the Customs Act 1966.

Hot Shots; Hot, Steamin’ Holes; Tightropes

These publications are aimed at the male homosexual market and contain a significant number of photographs of 2 or more nude male models in a variety of poses. All of these magazines present a strong emphasis on the male genitalia and there are a number of scenes concentrating on either genital manipulation or anal or oral sex. The Tribunal has on a number of previous occasions found similar publications to be injurious to the public good and classified them as unconditionally indecent and an example of that can be found in decision 22/87. The Tribunal is satisfied that these magazines contain content of the kind which is injurious to the public good and classifies each as unconditionally indecent.

Switch Hitting Sauna; Sperm Special

These magazines contain a number of depictions of explicit heterosexual and homosexual activity between 2 or more male and female models. Some of these have apparently been taken from recorded video tapes while others are obviously simple photographic sequences. The displays of sexual intimacy are of a kind which the Tribunal is satisfied would be injurious to the public good and classifies each of these publications as unconditionally indecent.

The Tribunal is concerned to note that in respect of the publication Tightropes, No. 2 the importer apparently also brought into New Zealand a video cassette of the same name and that video cassette was returned to the importer whereas the magazine was seized and referred to the Tribunal. That fact has been referred to by Mr Ireland in his submission and it is typical of the number of submissions which have been made by Mr Ireland and by other counsel either appearing before or making written submissions to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is very conscious of the fact that it cannot operate in a vacuum and it is well aware of the nature of video cassette recordings which are available either for general or restricted circulation. Any observer of the decisions of the Tribunal would have noticed that over the years the benchmark of acceptability has been moved and is in fact constantly moving but the members of the Tribunal are satisfied that the interpretation which they give to the legislation under which they have their authority to make such classifications, as interpreted not only by the Tribunal in its precedent decisions but by the High Court and the Court of Appeal, both justify and require the classification which these particular publications have been given.