Judgment: 2007-12-21 · Court archive

High Court rejects challenge to refusal to certify video work

The court held that the censor’s statement, though framed in the words of the statute, gave enough information about the grounds for refusing certification.

High Court · [2007] IEHC 464

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Jaqueline Byrne (Applicant)
  • The Official Censor
  • The Censorship of Films Appeals Board
What

The court held that the censor’s statement, though framed in the words of the statute, gave enough information about the grounds for refusing certification.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge to the refusal to certify the video work “Anabolic Initiations #5”, holding that the reasons given were sufficient. The court did not quash the refusal or send the matter back for reconsideration.

The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge to the refusal to certify the video work “Anabolic Initiations #5”, holding that the reasons given were sufficient. The court did not quash the refusal or send the matter back for reconsideration.

The applicant, identified in the judgment as Jaqueline Byrne, applied for certification under the Video Recordings Act 1989. The Official Censor refused the application in April 2004, stating that the work was unfit for viewing because it contained obscene or indecent matter that would tend to deprave or corrupt viewers. The Censorship of Films Appeals Board unanimously affirmed that decision in July 2006.

At the appeal stage, the board asked the Official Censor for a written statement of reasons. His reply repeated the statutory ground for refusal but did not describe particular scenes or explain in detail how he reached his opinion. The applicant argued that this was inadequate and that the absence of fuller reasons breached fair procedures. Although the judicial review had initially raised other grounds, counsel relied only on the reasons argument at the hearing.

The respondents argued that the applicant knew the basis for the decision and that the case involved a defined statutory test. The court noted that the censor’s statement identified which of the Act’s possible grounds had been relied on: the work was considered likely to deprave or corrupt because of obscene or indecent matter. It held that repeating statutory language did not make a reason inadequate where the language conveyed the relevant basis for the decision.

The judgment said the censor was not required to provide an analysis of the video or identify the parts that influenced his opinion. The information supplied was enough to allow the applicant to understand the refusal and decide whether to challenge it. The court therefore found no basis to quash the decisions of the Official Censor and the Appeal Board or remit the certification question for further consideration. The applicant had sought certiorari and costs.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review