CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 janvier 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 17419/90                               Nigel Wingrove                                   against                             the United Kingdom                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 10 January 1995)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1-18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.    The application            (paras. 2-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.    The proceedings            (paras. 5-13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         C.    The present Report            (paras. 14-18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 19-39). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4         A.    The particular circumstances of the case            (paras. 19-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4         B.    Relevant domestic law            (paras. 32-39) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 40-70). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15         A.    Complaint declared admissible            (para. 40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15         B.    Point at issue            (para. 41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15         C.    As regards Article 10 of the Convention            (paras. 42-69) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15              (a)    Interference with freedom of expression                  (para. 43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15              (b)    Prescribed by law                  (paras. 44-49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15              (c)    Legitimate aim                  (paras. 50-53) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16              (d)    Necessary in a democratic society                  (paras. 54-69) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18              CONCLUSION            (para. 70) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. SCHERMERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22   CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. LOUCAIDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23   OPINION DISSIDENTE DE M. SOYER A LAQUELLE DECLARE SE RALLIER M. WEITZEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . .24   APPENDIX I    : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . .26   APPENDIX II   : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . .27   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.     The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.     The application   2.     The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1957 and resident in London. He was represented before the Commission by Messrs. Stephens Innocent, Solicitors, London.   3.     The application is directed against the United Kingdom. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents, Mrs. A. Glover and Mr. H. Llewellyn, both of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   4.     The case concerns the refusal of the British Board of Film Classification to grant a classification certificate to the applicant for an 18 minute video film he made, entitled "Visions of Ecstasy", because it was deemed to be blasphemous.   The applicant invokes Article 10 of the Convention.   B.     The proceedings   5.     The application was introduced on 18 June 1990 and registered on 13 November 1990.   6.     After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on 7 April 1992.   It decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on admissibility and merits.   The Government's observations were submitted on 24 July 1992 after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.   The applicant replied on 18 December 1992 also after an extension of the time-limit.   (On 23 October 1992 the Commission had granted the applicant legal aid.)   7.     On 10 March 1993 the Government submitted comments on points raised in the applicant's observations, to which the applicant responded on 10 May 1993.   8.     On 11 May 1993 the Commission decided to invite the parties to make oral submissions at a hearing.   The hearing was fixed for 15 October 1993, but then adjourned until 8 March 1994 at the request of the applicant.   9.     On 21 February 1994, prior to the hearing, the applicant submitted a pre-hearing brief and a document containing counsel's advice on remedies. On 7 March 1994 the Commission saw the applicant's video film.   10.    At the hearing on 8 March 1994 the Government were represented by Mr. H. Llewellyn, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agent, Mr. P. Havers, Counsel, Miss S. Dickson, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. D. Evans, Home Office, Adviser and Mr. R. Heaton, Home Office, Adviser. The applicant was represented by Mr. G. Robertson, QC, Counsel, Mr. M. Stephens, and Mr. P. Chinnery, Solicitors, Messrs. Stephens Innocent.   11.    On 8 March 1994 the Commission declared the application admissible.   12.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 18 March 1994 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.   No further observations were submitted.   13.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   14.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:         MM.   C.L. ROKAKIS, Acting President            F. ERMACORA            S. TRECHSEL            A. WEITZEL            J.-C. SOYER            H.G. SCHERMERS       Mrs. G.H. THUNE       Mrs. J. LIDDY       MM.   L. LOUCAIDES            J.-C. GEUS            M.A. NOWICKI            I. CABRAL BARRETO            N. BRATZA            J. MUCHA            D. SVÁBY            E. KONSTANTINOV   15.    The text of this Report was adopted on 10 January 1995 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   16.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:         (i)   to establish the facts, and         (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose            a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under            the Convention.   17.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   18.    The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.     The particular circumstances of the case   19.    The applicant wrote the shooting script for, and directed the making of, a video work entitled "Visions of Ecstasy" ("the video"). Its running time is approximately 18 minutes, and it contains no dialogue, only music and moving images.   The idea for the video was derived from the life and writings of St. Teresa of Avila, the sixteenth century Carmelite nun and founder of many convents, who experienced powerful ecstatic visions of Jesus Christ.   20.    The action of the video centres upon a youthful actress dressed as a nun and intended to represent St. Teresa.   It begins with the nun, dressed loosely in a black habit, stabbing her own hand with a large nail and spreading her blood over her naked breasts and clothing.   In her writhing, she spills a chalice of communion wine and proceeds to lick it up from the ground.   She loses consciousness.   This sequence takes up approximately half of the running time of the video.   The second part of the video shows St. Teresa dressed in a white habit standing with her arms held above her head by a white cord which is suspended from above and tied around her wrists.   The near naked form of a second female, said to represent the psyche of St. Teresa, slowly crawls her way along the ground towards her.   Upon reaching her feet, the psyche begins to caress her, first her feet and legs, then her midriff, then her breasts and finally to engage in passionate kisses with her.   Throughout this sequence, St. Teresa appears to be writhing in exquisite erotic sensation.   This sequence is intercut at frequent intervals with a second sequence in which one sees the body of Christ, fastened to the cross which is lying upon the ground.   St. Teresa first kisses the stigmata of his feet before moving up his body and kissing or licking the gaping wound in his right side.   Then she sits astride him, seemingly naked under her habit, all the while moving in a motion reflecting intense erotic arousal, and kisses his lips.   For a few seconds, it appears that he responds to her kisses.   This action is intercut with the passionate kisses of the Psyche already described. Finally, St. Teresa runs her hand down to the fixed hand of Christ and entwines his fingers in hers.   As she does so, the fingers of Christ seem to curl upwards to hold with hers, whereupon the video ends.   21.    Apart from the cast list which appears on the screen for a few seconds, the viewer has no means of knowing that the person dressed as a nun in the video is intended to be St. Teresa or that the other woman who appears is intended to be her psyche.   No attempt is made in the video to explain its historical background.   22.    The video was submitted to the British Board of Film Classification ("the Board"), being the authority designated by the Home Secretary under section 4 (1) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (the 1984 Act; see below para. 33) as         "the authority responsible for making arrangements         (a)   for determining, for the purposes of (the) Act whether or            not video works are suitable for classification            certificates to be issued in respect of them, having            special regard to the likelihood of video works in respect            of which such certificates have been issued being viewed in            the home         (b)   in the case of works which are determined in accordance            with the arrangements to be so suitable -              (i)    for making such other determinations as are required                  for the issue of classification certificates, and              (ii)   for issuing such certificates ...".   23.    The applicant submitted the video to the Board in order that it might lawfully be sold, hired out or otherwise supplied to the general public or a section thereof.   24.    The Board rejected the application for a classification certificate on 18 September 1989 in the following terms:         "Further to your application for a classification certificate for       the above video work, you are already aware that under the Video       Recordings Act 1984 the Board must determine first of all whether       or not a video work is suitable for such a certificate to be       issued to it, having special regard to the likelihood of video       works being viewed in the home.   In making this judgment, the       Board must have regard to the Home Secretary's Letter of       Designation in which we are enjoined to 'continue to seek to       avoid classifying works which are obscene within the meaning of       the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 or which infringe       other provisions of the criminal law.'         Amongst these provisions is the criminal law of blasphemy, as       tested recently in the House of Lords in R v. Lemon (1979),       commonly known as the 'Gay News' case.   The definition of       blasphemy cited therein is 'any contemptuous, reviling,       scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ or       the Bible ...   It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions       hostile to the Christian religion' if the publication is 'decent       and temperate'.   The question is not one of the matter expressed,       but of its manner, i.e. 'the tone, style and spirit', in which       it is presented.         The video work submitted by you depicts the mingling of religious       ecstasy and sexual passion, a matter which may be of legitimate       concern to the artist.   It becomes subject to the law of       blasphemy, however, if the manner of its presentation is bound       to give rise to outrage at the unacceptable treatment of a sacred       subject.   Because the wounded body of the crucified Christ is       presented solely as the focus of, and at certain moments a       participant in, the erotic desire of St. Teresa, with no attempt       to explore the meaning of the imagery beyond engaging the viewer       in an erotic experience, it is the Board's view, and that of its       legal advisers, that a reasonable jury properly directed would       find that the work infringes the criminal law of blasphemy.         To summarise, it is not the case that the sexual imagery in       VISIONS OF ECSTASY lies beyond the parameters of the '18'       category; it is simply that for a major proportion of the work's       duration that sexual imagery is focused on the figure of the       crucified Christ.   If the male figure were not Christ, the       problem would not arise.   Cuts of a fairly radical nature in the       overt expressions of sexuality between St. Teresa and the Christ       figure might be practicable, but I understand that you do not       wish to attempt this course of action.   In consequence, we have       concluded that it would not be suitable for a classification       certificate to be issued to this video work."   25.    The applicant appealed against the Board's determination to the Video Appeals Committee ("the VAC"), established pursuant to section 4(3) of the 1984 Act.   His Notice of Appeal, prepared by his legal representatives at the time, contained the following grounds:         "i)   that the Board was wrong to conclude that the video            infringes the criminal law of blasphemy, and that a            reasonable jury properly directed would so find.         ii)   in particular, the appellant will contend that upon a            proper understanding of the serious nature of the video as            an artistic and imaginative interpretation of the 'ecstasy'            or 'rapture' of the sixteenth century Carmelite nun,            St. Teresa of Avila, it would not be taken by a reasonable            person as contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous            or otherwise disparaging in relation to God, Jesus Christ            or the Bible.   The appeal will raise the question of mixed            fact and law, namely whether publication of the video, even            to a restricted degree, would contravene the existing            criminal law of blasphemy."   26.    The Board submitted a formal reply to the VAC explaining its decision in relation to its functions under section 4 of the 1984 Act:         "The Act does not expressly set out the principles to be applied       by the authority in determining whether or not a video work is       suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect       of it.   In these circumstances, the Board has exercised its       discretion to formulate principles for classifying video works       in a manner which it believes to be both reasonable and suited       to carrying out the broad objectives of the Act.   Amongst these       principles, the Board has concluded that an overriding test of       suitability for classification is the determination that the       video work in question does not infringe the criminal law.   In       formulating and applying this principle, the Board has       consistently had regard to the Home Secretary's Letter of       Designation under the Video Recordings Act ...         The Board has concluded on the advice of leading Counsel that the       video work in question infringes the criminal law of blasphemy       and that a reasonable jury properly directed on the law would       convict accordingly.   The Board submits and is advised that in       Britain the offence of blasphemy is committed if a video work       treats a religious subject (in particular God, Jesus Christ or       the Bible) in such a manner as to be calculated (that is, bound,       not intended) to outrage those who have an understanding of,       sympathy towards and support for the Christian story and ethic,       because of the contemptuous, reviling, insulting, scurrilous or       ludicrous tone, style and spirit in which the subject is       presented.         The video work under appeal purports to depict the erotic       fantasies of a character described in the credits as St. Teresa       of Avila.   The 14 minute second section of the video work       portrays 'St. Teresa' having an erotic fantasy involving the       crucified figure of Christ, and also a Lesbian erotic fantasy       involving the 'Psyche of St. Teresa'.   No attempt is made to       place what is shown in any historical, religious or dramatic       context: the figures of St. Teresa and her psyche are both       clearly modern in appearance and the erotic images are       accompanied by a rock music backing.   The work contains no       dialogue or evidence of an interest in exploring the psychology       or even the sexuality of the character purporting to be St.       Teresa of Avila.   Instead, this character and her supposed       fantasies about lesbianism and the body and blood of Christ are       presented as the occasion for a series of erotic images of a kind       familiar from 'soft-core' pornography.         In support of its contentions, the Board refers to an interview       given by the appellant and published in 'Midweek' magazine on       14 September 1989.   In this interview, the appellant attempts to       draw a distinction between pornography and 'erotica', denying       that the video work in question is pornograhic but stating that       'all my own work is actually erotica.'   Further on, the       interviewer comments:              'In many ways, though, Visions calls upon the standard            lexicon of lust found in down market porn: nuns,            lesbianism, women tied up ("Gay nuns in bondage" could have            been an alternative title in fact).   <The film's director>            flashes a wicked grin.   'That's right, and I'm not denying            it.   I don't know what it is about nuns, it's the same sort            of thing as white stocking tops I suppose.'   So why does he            not consider Visions to be pornography, or at least soft            porn?   'I hope it is gentler, subtler than that.   I suppose            most people think pornography shows the sex act, and this            doesn't.'         It is clear from the Appellant's own admissions that, whether or       not the video work can rightly be described as pornographic, it       is solely erotic in content, and it focuses this erotic imagery       for much of its duration on the body and blood of Christ, who is       even shown to respond to the sexual attentions of the principal       character.   Moreover, the manner in which such imagery is treated       places the focus of the work less on the erotic feelings of the       character than on those of the audience, which is the primary       function of pornography whether or not it shows the sex act       explicitly.   Because there is no attempt, in the Board's view,       to explore the meaning of the imagery beyond engaging the viewer       in a voyeuristic erotic experience, the Board considers that the       public distribution of such a video work would outrage and insult       the feelings of believing Christians.   It is impossible therefore       to accept the Appellant's contention in his Notice to Appeal ...         The Board ... submits that the appeal should be dismissed and its       determination upheld."   27.    The applicant then made further representations to the VAC, stating inter alia:         "The definition of the offence of blasphemy set out in ... the       reply is too wide, being significantly wider than the test       approved in the only modern authority - see Lemon & Gay News Ltd       v. Whitehouse (1979) AC 617, per Lord Scarman at p. 665.   For       example, there is no uniform law of blasphemy in Britain; the       last recorded prosecution for blasphemy under the law of Scotland       was in 1843 - see Thos Paterson (1843) I Brown 629.   Nor is any       religious subject protected - the reviling matter must be in       relation to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible, or the formularies       of the Church of England as by law established.         In the Appellant's contention, these limitations are of the       utmost significance in this case since the video is not concerned       with anything which God or Jesus Christ did, or thought or might       have approved of.   It is about the erotic visions and imaginings       of a 16th Century Carmelite nun -   namely St. Teresa of Avila.       It is quite plain that the Christ figure exists in her fantasy       as the Board expressly accepts ...   The scurrilous and/or erotic       treatment of religious subject matter has received the Board's       classification without attempted prosecution in recent years, eg       Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' and Mr. Scorsese's 'Last       Temptation of Christ'.         ...   The Board argues that the video is purely erotic or 'soft-       core' pornographic, without historical, religious, dramatic or       other artistic merit.   The implication is that, had it possessed       such merit the Board's decision might very well have been       otherwise. The Appellant will seek to argue and call evidence to       the effect that the video work is a serious treatment of the       subject of the ecstatic raptures of St. Teresa (well chronicled       in her own works and those of commentators) from a twentieth       century point of view.         The so-called 'rock music backing' was in fact specially       commissioned from the respected composer, Steven Severin, after       discussion of the Director's desired artistic and emotional       impact.   The Board has based its decision upon the narrowest,       most disparaging, critical appreciation of the work.   The       Appellant will contend that a very much more favourable       assessment of his aims and achievement in making 'Visions of       Ecstasy' is, at the very least, tenable and that the Board ought       not to refuse a certificate on a mere matter of interpretation.         The Appellant takes objection to the Board's quotation ... of       comments attributed to him from an article by one Rob Ryan       published in 'Midweek' magazine 14 September 1989.   The remarks       are pure hearsay so far as the Board is concerned.   That aside,       the piece quoted is in large part the comments of the author of       the article.   An entirely misleading impression of what the       Appellant said to the author is conveyed by the interpolation of       the words attributed to him, and by taking this passage out of       context.         Above all, the Appellant disputes the key assertion by the Board       that the video work is solely erotic in content."   28.    The appeal was heard by a five member Panel of the VAC ("the Panel") on 6 and 7 December 1989; oral and affidavit evidence was submitted.   By a majority of three to two, a written decision was given on 23 December 1989.   The Panel also considered itself bound by the criteria set out in the designation notice (para. 33 below).   It had difficulty, however, in ascertaining and applying the present law of blasphemy.   It commented as follows:         "The authorities on this Common Law offence were reviewed by the       House of Lords in the case of Lemon and Gay News Ltd v.       Whitehouse which concerned a magazine called 'Gay News', the       readership of which consisted mainly of homosexuals although it       was on sale to the general public at some bookstalls.   One       edition contained a poem entitled 'The Love that Dares to Speak       its Name' accompanied by a drawing illustrating its subject       matter.         In his judgment Lord Scarman said that it was unnecessary to       speculate whether an outraged Christian would feel provoked by       the words and illustration to commit a breach of the peace, the       true test being whether the words are calculated to outrage and       insult the Christian's religious feelings, the material in       question being contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous       matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible or the       formularies of the Church of England.   It should perhaps be added       that the word 'calculated' should be read in the dictionary sense       of 'estimated' or 'likely' as it was decided that intent (other       than an intent to publish) is not an element in the offence.         In the same case Lord Diplock said that the material must be       'likely to arouse a sense of outrage among those who believe in       or respect the Christian faith'.         In the present case the Board's Director ... said in evidence       that the Board's view was that the video was 'contemptuous of the       divinity of Christ'.   He added that although the Board's decision       was based upon its view that the video is blasphemous (blasphemy       being an offence which relates only to the Christian religion),       it would take just the same stance if it were asked to grant a       Certificate to a video which, for instance, was contemptuous of       Mohammed or Buddha."   29.    The Panel reviewed the contents of the video and accepted that the applicant had in mind St. Teresa, a nun, "who is known to have had ecstatic visions of Christ although, incidentally, these did not start until she was 39 years of age - in marked contrast to the obvious youthfulness of the actress who plays the part."   30.    The Panel held as follows:         "From the writings of St. Teresa herself, and the subsequent       writings of others, there seems no reason to doubt that some of       her visions were of seeing the glorified body of Christ and being       shown his wounds but, even so, it seems clear that (the       appellant) has taken considerable artistic licence with his       subject.   Apart from the age discrepancy - a comparatively minor       matter - we were made aware of nothing which would suggest that       Teresa ever did anything to injure her hand or that any element       of lesbianism ever entered into her visions.   More importantly,       there seems nothing to suggest that Teresa, in her visions, ever       saw herself as being in any bodily contact with the glorified       Christ.   As one author, Mr. Stephen Clissold, puts it 'Teresa       experienced ecstasy as a form of prayer in which she herself       played almost no part'.   So, in view of the extent of the       artistic licence, we think it would be reasonable to look upon       the video as centering upon any nun of any century who, like many       others down the ages, had ecstatic visions.   There is also       another reason for taking this stance:   unless the viewer happens       to read the cast list which appears on the screen for a few       seconds, he or she has no means of knowing that the nun is       supposed to be St. Teresa, nor that the figure of the second       woman is supposed to be her Psyche.   And he or she in any event       may well be unaware that Teresa was a real-life nun who had       ecstatic visions.         It is true that (the appellant) says that it is intended that the       sleeve or jacket for the video will provide 'basic historical       information to assist the viewer', but we feel bound to regard       this as irrelevant.   Firstly because it by no means follows that       every viewer will read any such description; and secondly because       the Board's and the Appeal Panel's decision must be based solely       upon the video itself, quite apart from the fact that at the time       of making a decision the sleeve or jacket is usually - as in the       present instance - not even in existence.         However, although we have thought it proper to dwell at some       length with the 'St. Teresa' aspect, we are of the opinion that       in practice, when considering whether or not the video is       blasphemous, it makes little or no difference whether one looks       upon the central character as being St. Teresa or any other nun.       The appellant, in his written statement, lays stress upon the       undoubted fact that the whole of the second half consists of       Teresa's vision or dream.   Hence he says the video says nothing       about Christ, his figure being used only as a projection of St.       Teresa's mind, nor was it his intention to make that figure an       active participant in any overt sexual act.   He goes on to say       'Rather the very mild responses are those of St. Teresa's       conjecture: the kiss, hand clasp and ultimately the tears of       Christ.   To show no response to a creation of her own mind would       be nonsense; no woman (nor man) whose deep love could cause such       visions/ecstasies would imagine the object of that love coldly       to ignore their caresses'.   Although we quite appreciate the       logic of this point of view, we have reservations about the       extent to which a vision or dream sequence   can affect the       question of whether what is pictured or said is blasphemous.   It       would, for instance, be possible to produce a film or video which       was most extremely contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or       ludicrous in relation to Christ, all dressed up in the context       of someone's imaginings.   In such circumstances we find it hard       to envisage that, by such a simple device, it could reasonably       be said that no offence had been committed.   If in our opinion       the viewer, after making proper allowance for the scene being in       the form of a dream, nevertheless reasonably feels that it would       cause a sense of outrage and insult to a Christian's feelings,       the offence would be established.         We should perhaps also deal, albeit briefly, with a further       submission made on behalf of the appellant, namely that the crime       of blasphemy may extend only to the written or spoken word and       hence that a Court might rule that no film or video, and perhaps       nothing shown on television, could become the subject of such a       charge.   Suffice it to say that in our view this is too unlikely       to cause it to be taken into account by the Board or a panel of       the Appeals Committee when reaching a decision.         In the opinion of a majority of the Panel the video did not, as       the appellant claims, explore St. Teresa's struggles against her       visions but exploited a devotion to Christ in purely carnal       terms.   Furthermore they considered that it lacked the       seriousness and depth of 'The Last Temptation of Christ' with       which Counsel for the appellant sought to compare it.   Indeed the       majority took the view that the video's message was that the nun       was moved not by religious ecstasy but rather by sexual ecstasy,       this ecstasy being of a perverse kind - full of images of blood,       sado-masochism, lesbianism (or perhaps auto-erotism) and bondage.       Although there was evidence of some element of repressed       sexuality in St. Teresa's devotion to Christ, they did not       consider that this gave any ground for portraying her as taking       the initiative in indulged sexuality.   They considered the over-       all tone and spirit of the video to be indecent and had little       doubt that all the above factors, coupled with the motions of the       nun whilst astride the body of Christ and the response to her       kisses and the intertwining of the fingers would outrage the       feelings of Christians, who would reasonably look upon it as       being contemptuous of the divinity of Christ.   In these       circumstances the majority were satisfied that the video is       blasphemous, that a reasonable and properly directed jury would       be likely to convict and therefore that the Board was right to       refuse to grant a Certificate.   Hence this appeal is accordingly       dismissed.         It should perhaps be added that the minority on the Panel, whilst       being in no doubt that many people would find the video to be       extremely distasteful, would have allowed the appeal because in       their view it is unlikely that a reasonable and properly directed       jury would convict."   31.    As a result of the Board's determination, as upheld by the Panel, the applicant would commit an offence under section 9 of the 1984 Act if he were to supply the video in any manner, whether or not for reward. The applicant received legal advice that his case was not suitable for judicial review (cf. paras. 38-39 below).   B.     Relevant domestic law   1.     The regulation of video recordings   32.    The Video Recordings Act 1984 (the 1984 Act) regulates the distribution of video recordings.   Subject to certain exemptions, it is an offence under section 9(1) of that Act for a person to supply or offer to supply a video recording containing a video work in respect of which no classification certificate has been issued. There are three categories of classification: works deemed suitable for general viewing (and to which a parental guidance reference may be added), works for which the viewing is restricted to people who have attained the age of 18, and works which may only be supplied by licensed sex shops (section 7). The Secretary of State may require that the contents of certain works be labelled (section 8). It is an offence to ignore such conditions, for example by supplying someone under 18 years of age with an "18" classified work (section 11).   33.    Under section 4(1)