A Hamilton judge has labelled a man’s collection of “extreme” sex videos the worst he has encountered in his 37-year legal career.
So bad was the “disgusting” collection – which featured torture, bondage, bestiality and child rape, Judge Robert Spear said a deterrent message had to be sent to others that may follow David Robert Miles‘ “curiosity”, and sentenced him to 13 months’ jail.
“The videos portrayed what might loosely be described as pornography at its most gross level. It involved sex offending involving very young children; it involved bestiality and torture.
“I have to tell you that with some 37 years of appearing or presiding over criminal courts and having to deal with cases of this nature, this is without question the most disgusting material that I have ever had to deal with.
“Indeed, when I deal with the torture cases, I agree entirely with the police submission that these were . . . a snuff movie.
“This is material that over a period of time you agree to downloading onto your computer because you were curious as to what might excite your interest.”
The judge said this offending was even more serious because it also victimised the people involved in the acts
It’s important that people understand that the trade in pornography must be stopped . . . and they can expect little leniency from the court,”
He said anything less than a prison sentence could be interpreted by the public as it being “diluted” by allowing Miles to return home – where the offending took place.
See full Stuff News story: Reporter Belinda Feek. Published 25/04/14
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. has as one of the “objects” of its Constitution:
” To focus attention on the harmful nature and consequences of … pornography, violence, … and other forms of moral corruption, for the purpose of moral and spiritual improvement.” [Emphasis added].
” To support responsible freedom of expression which does not injure the public good by degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people.” [Emphasis added]
The context of the terms “degrading, dehumanising or demeaning” and “injure the public good” as used in the SPCS Constitution comes from:
The Films, Videos, and Publications Act 1993
… in terms of physical “conduct or sexual conduct” as portrayed in a “publication“.
A publication could be for example a DVD recording or photo of a publicly displayed sexually explicit “Erotica” billboard that contains “objectionable” content, including the promoter(s) and/or participants; degrading, dehumanising and demeaning women and exploiting them for commercial gain.
Quoting the Act
3. Meaning of Objectionable
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.
(2) A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support,—
(a) the exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes; or
(b) the use of violence or coercion to compel any person to participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or
(c) sexual conduct with or upon the body of a dead person; or
(d) the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct; or
(e) bestiality; or
(f) acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.
(3) In determining, for the purposes of this Act, whether or not any publication (other than a publication to which subsection (2) applies) is objectionable or should in accordance with section 23(2) be given a classification other than objectionable, particular weight shall be given to the extent and degree to which, and the manner in which, the publication—
(a) describes, depicts, or otherwise deals with—
(i) acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm, or acts of significant cruelty:
(ii) sexual violence or sexual coercion, or violence or coercion in association with sexual conduct:
(iii) other sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature:
(iv) sexual conduct with or by children, or young persons, or both:
(v) physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain:
(b) exploits the nudity of children, or young persons, or both:
(c) degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person: