Pornography Case Not Proved, Says Counsel (Press, 20 September 1980)

On 20 September 1980, in the District Court, Judge Frampton heard the case of David Terrence O’Connell, a 24-year-old commission agent charged with possession for sale of obscene materials. O’Connell pleaded not guilty to five counts concerning the possession of 182 picture books, 13 packs of playing cards, and 118 mm films identified as indecent. Dr. W. G. G. A. Young represented O’Connell and presented legal arguments aimed at demonstrating that it had not been proven O’Connell possessed the materials with intent to sell. The hearing was adjourned until 23 September, allowing time for the police prosecutor, Senior-Sergeant R. A. Cook, to respond to the legal points raised by Dr. Young. Across the prosecution's case, six police witnesses provided testimonies. Constable Graeme John Kennedy testified about an incident on 14 January where he discovered O’Connell's car parked at Ibis House. Upon investigation, officers found a box containing books and films, some of which were explicit in nature. When confronted, O’Connell claimed the items were for personal use despite having multiple copies of certain books, leading Sergeant Thompson to doubt his assertion. Titles included overtly explicit content, casting suspicion on O’Connell's intentions. During the search, items confiscated included books depicting various sexual behaviours and 13 packs of cards labelled as hard pornography. The films, believed to be Danish, contained similar content. Defence attorney Dr. Young contended that the police did not have sufficient justification for the delegation of authority to file these charges and argued that playing cards were not covered under the relevant legislation concerning indecent publications. Additional police evidence revealed further details about O’Connell's activities, including the operation of two establishments described as "rap parlours" where discussions with naked women occurred. Detective Sergeant Quenin Max Doig detailed a subsequent search warrant executed at O’Connell's home, where more pornographic materials were discovered, alongside a list of book titles and prices, indicating potential sales involvement. Accusations against O’Connell escalated as it was noted that the contents found had been deemed devoid of literary or artistic merit by the Indecent Publications Tribunal, who concluded these materials were likely to corrupt. Detective Raymond Homan testified that he had warned O’Connell about the nature of the materials. Overall, the courtroom exchanges revealed a complex case hinged on legal definitions and evidentiary gaps, with O’Connell’s defence questioning the lawful basis of the police’s actions and the integrity of the evidence presented. The proceedings highlighted broader societal concerns about the circulation of hard-core pornography, particularly involving sensitive categories like child pornography and sexual violence, while also showcasing the legal frameworks at play in adjudicating such matters.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand