Jump to content

R v Walker: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Good Olfactory (talk | contribs)
688,950 edits
WP:NOTBROKEN; WP:OVERLINK; removed cn as the statement is present in the Independent article cited below
 
(33 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|UK obscenity trial}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
{{italic title}}
{{italic title}}
{{Infobox Court Case
{{Infobox Court Case
| name = R v Walker
| name = R v Walker
| court = [[Crown Court]]
| court = [[Crown Court]]
| image = Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
| image =
| imagesize =
| imagelink =
| imagealt =
| caption =
| full name =Regina v Darryn Walker
| full name =Regina v Darryn Walker
| date decided =29 June 2009
| date decided =29 June 2009
| citations =
| citations =
| transcripts =
| transcripts =
| judges =Esmond Faulks
| judges = Esmond Faulks J.
| opinions = If accepted expert evidence shows an article could only be located by those specifically searching for such material it will not be likely to corrupt readers
| prior actions =
| keywords = {{hlist|horrific literature|obscenity|internet|real-life living subjects|real person fiction}}
| subsequent actions =
| related actions =
| opinions =
| keywords =
}}
}}
'''''R v Walker''''' was the prosecution of English [[Her Majesty's Civil Service|Civil Servant]] Darryn Walker for the publication of written material on the Internet under Section 2(1) of the [[Obscene Publications Act 1959|Obscene Publications Act]]. It was the first such prosecution in nearly two decades and set a precedent for using the act to prosecute [[web fiction]].<ref name="Ozimek2008">{{cite news|last=Ozimek |first=John |title=The Obscene Publications Act rides again |publisher=The Register |date=6 October 2008 |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/06/obscene_publication_girls_aloud/}}</ref> Media controversy was generated because the written material in question was a [[real person fiction]] text horror story describing the imagined murder of the members of British pop group [[Girls Aloud]].<ref name="daily star">{{Cite news | last = | first = | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = Sicko plots to torture, rape & kill Girls Aloud | newspaper = [[Daily Star (United Kingdom)|Daily Star]] | pages = | year = | date = 26 July 2007 | url = http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/13297/Sicko-plots-to-torture-rape-kill-GIrls-Aloud/}}</ref> The case was abruptly abandoned on its first day and the defendant was cleared of all charges.<ref name="Hughes2009">{{Cite news | last = Hughes | first = Mark | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = Blogger who wrote about killing Girls Aloud cleared | newspaper = [[The Independent]] | pages = | year = | date = 30 June 2009 | url = http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/blogger-who-wrote-about-killing-girls-aloud-cleared-1724457.html | location=London}}</ref>
'''''R v Walker''''' was an [[England|English]] [[Crown Court]] case that was a test of the [[Obscene Publications Act 1959]]. It was the first such prosecution involving written material in nearly two decades and set a precedent in use of the act to prosecute [[web fiction]].<ref name="Ozimek2008">{{cite news|last=Ozimek |first=John |title=The Obscene Publications Act rides again |publisher=The Register |date=6 October 2008 |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/06/obscene_publication_girls_aloud/}}</ref> In October 2008, the defendant, [[civil servant]] Darryn Walker was charged with publishing an obscene story contrary to Section 2(1). It appeared on an internet site. A newspaper sparked the prosecution as it involved a [[real person fiction]] erotic horror story about the murder of the members of British pop group [[Girls Aloud]]. The case was abruptly abandoned on its first day and the defendant was cleared of all charges.<ref name="Hughes2009">{{Cite news | last = Hughes | first = Mark | title = Blogger who wrote about killing Girls Aloud cleared | newspaper = [[The Independent]] | date = 30 June 2009 | url = https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/blogger-who-wrote-about-killing-girls-aloud-cleared-1724457.html | location=London}}</ref>

==Background==
On 26 July 2007, UK tabloid newspaper ''[[Daily Star (United Kingdom)|The Daily Star]]'' reported that it had discovered an online text story about British pop group [[Girls Aloud]] that it described as "a chilling story detailing each singer's gory death in scenes that could be straight out of a horror movie", characterizing its author as "a vile internet psycho" and "a cyber-sicko". The news story said that ''The Daily Star'' had reported the content of the hosting website, "Kristen Archives" (a subsite of the [[ASSTR]] archive), to the [[Internet Watch Foundation]], and that the IWF had traced the site to the US. It also claimed that Interpol had been notified to help track down the site's operators and the writer of the story. An IWF spokesperson was reported as saying that since the site was hosted in the US, it fell outside the organization's remit, but that they were aware of the site. The spokesperson added that the site also contained "child abuse fantasy stories" and that they had passed on details of it to the British police.<ref name="daily star"/>


==Decision to prosecute==
==Decision to prosecute==
The story, entitled "Girls (Scream) Aloud",<ref>{{cite web |last=Sinclair |first=Blake |title=Girls (Scream)Aloud |work=Kristen's Putrid Story Archive |publisher=[[alt.sex.stories|Alt Sex Stories]] Text Repository |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20070716173423/http://www.asstr.org/~Kristen/putrid/girlsscream.htm |archivedate=16 July 2007|url=http://www.asstr.org/~Kristen/putrid/girlsscream.htm }}</ref> had been posted from within the [[jurisdiction]] of the UK on a website hosted in the US. Although submitted under a pseudonym, the posting included a traceable email address. Officers from [[Scotland Yard]]’s [[Metropolitan Police Clubs & Vice Unit#Role|Obscene Publications Unit]] decided to take action over the story after consulting the [[Crown Prosecution Service]] (CPS), and on 25 September 2008 it was announced that the author, Darryn Walker, was to be prosecuted for the online publication of material that the police and the CPS believed was obscene. It was the first such prosecution for written material since the [[Obscene Publications Act 1959#Notable prosecutions under the Act|landmark obscenity cases of the '60s and '70s]], and was expected to have a significant impact on the future regulation of the Internet in the UK.<ref name="Ozimek2008"/>
The story, entitled "Girls (Scream) Aloud",<ref>{{cite web |last=Sinclair |first=Blake |title=Girls (Scream)Aloud |work=Kristen's Putrid Story Archive |publisher=[[alt.sex.stories|Alt Sex Stories]] Text Repository |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070716173423/http://www.asstr.org/~Kristen/putrid/girlsscream.htm |archive-date=16 July 2007|url=http://www.asstr.org/~Kristen/putrid/girlsscream.htm }}</ref> had been posted from within the [[jurisdiction]] of the United Kingdom on a [[website]] hosted in the United States. Submitted under a pseudonym, the posting included a traceable [[email address]]. Officers from [[Scotland Yard]]’s [[Metropolitan Police Clubs & Vice Unit#Role|Obscene Publications Unit]] decided to seek prosecution after consulting the [[Crown Prosecution Service]] (CPS), and on 25 September 2008 it was announced that this would occur for the online publication of material that the police and the CPS believed was obscene. It was the first such prosecution for written material since the [[Obscene Publications Act 1959#Notable prosecutions under the Act|landmark obscenity cases of the 1960s and 1970s]]. Any ruling would affect intended regulation of the [[internet]] in the jurisdiction.<ref name="Ozimek2008"/>


==Trial==
==Trial==
Walker appeared in court on 22 October 2008 to face charges of "publishing an obscene article contrary to Section 2(1) of the [[Obscene Publications Act 1959]]". He was granted unconditional bail, and his case was initially set for trial on 16 March 2009.<ref>{{cite news |last=Ozimek |first=John |title=Date set for internet 'obscene' publications trial |publisher=The Register |date=22 October 2008 |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/obscene_publications_trial/}}</ref> However, at a directions hearing in January, the defendant made it known that given the seriousness of the case he would be represented by a QC ([[Queen's Counsel]]), following which the [[Crown Prosecution Service]] gave notice of its intention to similarly employ a QC, and the trial was postponed to 29 June 2009.
Walker appeared in court on 22 October 2008 to face charges of "publishing an obscene article contrary to Section 2(1) of the [[Obscene Publications Act 1959]]". He was granted unconditional bail; the first day of the trial was organised for 16 March 2009.<ref>{{cite news |last=Fae |first=Jane |title=Date set for internet 'obscene' publications trial |publisher=The Register |date=22 October 2008 |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/obscene_publications_trial/}}</ref> However, at the procedural preliminaries (directions) hearing in January, the defendant made it known that given the seriousness of the case he would be represented by a QC ([[Queen's Counsel]]), after which the [[Crown Prosecution Service]] gave notice of its intention to similarly employ one. The trial was postponed to 29 June 2009.


==Outcome==
==Outcome==
Walker appeared at [[Newcastle upon Tyne|Newcastle]] Crown Court on 29 June 2009 but the case was abandoned on what was supposed to be the first day of the trial, following the introduction of evidence from an [[Information technology|IT]] expert. The CPS said that it had originally charged Walker as it believed that the story in question could be "easily accessed" by young fans of Girls Aloud. However, the IT expert showed that the article could only be located by those specifically searching for such material. A spokesperson for the CPS said that the prosecution was unable to provide sufficient evidence to contradict this new evidence and therefore took the decision that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. Judge Esmond Faulks, presiding, returned a formal verdict of not guilty to the charge of "publishing an obscene article".<ref name="Hughes2009">{{Cite news | last = Hughes | first = Mark | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = Blogger who wrote about killing Girls Aloud cleared | newspaper = [[The Independent]] | pages = | year = | date = 30 June 2009 | url = http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/blogger-who-wrote-about-killing-girls-aloud-cleared-1724457.html | location=London}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Man cleared over Girls Aloud blog|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8124059.stm|publisher=BBC News|date=29 June 2009}}</ref>
Walker appeared at [[Newcastle Crown Court]] on that day. The prosecution withdrew its case after hearing evidence from an [[Information technology|IT]] expert. The CPS explained that it had charged Walker as it believed that the story in question could be "easily accessed" by young fans of Girls Aloud. This was because of the definition of obscenity used in the act which requires prosecutors to prove that those exposed to the material were previously unaware of its obscene nature. Those who actively seek out such material are deemed unlikely to be corrupted by it.<ref name=Guardian_OPA>{{cite news|author=Peter Beaumont and Nichi Hodgson|title=Obscenity law in doubt after jury acquits distributor of gay pornography|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jan/07/obscene-publications-act-future-doubt|publisher=The Guardian|date=7 January 2012|access-date=20 November 2013}}</ref> However, the IT expert showed that the article could only be located by those specifically searching for such material. A spokesperson for the CPS said that the prosecution was unable to provide sufficient evidence to contradict this new evidence and therefore no longer saw a realistic prospect of conviction. Mr Justice Faulks, presiding, [[No case to answer|directed the jury]] to return a formal verdict of not guilty to the charge.<ref name="Hughes2009"/><ref>{{cite news|title=Man cleared over Girls Aloud blog|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8124059.stm|work=BBC News|date=29 June 2009}}</ref>


== See also ==
== See also ==
Line 45: Line 37:
[[Category:2009 in England]]
[[Category:2009 in England]]
[[Category:Trials in England]]
[[Category:Trials in England]]
[[Category:2009 in case law]]
[[Category:2009 in United Kingdom case law]]
[[Category:Internet censorship in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Internet censorship in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:2009 in British law]]
[[Category:English criminal case law|W]]
⚫
[[Category:English criminal case law]]
[[Category:Internet case law]]
[[Category:Internet case law]]
⚫
[[Category:Obscenity case law]]
[[Category:United Kingdom pornography case law]]

Latest revision as of 11:24, 15 July 2024

R v Walker
CourtCrown Court
Full case name Regina v Darryn Walker
Decided29 June 2009
Court membership
Judge sittingEsmond Faulks J.
Case opinions
If accepted expert evidence shows an article could only be located by those specifically searching for such material it will not be likely to corrupt readers
Keywords
  • horrific literature
  • obscenity
  • internet
  • real-life living subjects
  • real person fiction

R v Walker was an English Crown Court case that was a test of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. It was the first such prosecution involving written material in nearly two decades and set a precedent in use of the act to prosecute web fiction.[1] In October 2008, the defendant, civil servant Darryn Walker was charged with publishing an obscene story contrary to Section 2(1). It appeared on an internet site. A newspaper sparked the prosecution as it involved a real person fiction erotic horror story about the murder of the members of British pop group Girls Aloud. The case was abruptly abandoned on its first day and the defendant was cleared of all charges.[2]

Decision to prosecute

[edit]

The story, entitled "Girls (Scream) Aloud",[3] had been posted from within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom on a website hosted in the United States. Submitted under a pseudonym, the posting included a traceable email address. Officers from Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Unit decided to seek prosecution after consulting the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and on 25 September 2008 it was announced that this would occur for the online publication of material that the police and the CPS believed was obscene. It was the first such prosecution for written material since the landmark obscenity cases of the 1960s and 1970s. Any ruling would affect intended regulation of the internet in the jurisdiction.[1]

Trial

[edit]

Walker appeared in court on 22 October 2008 to face charges of "publishing an obscene article contrary to Section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959". He was granted unconditional bail; the first day of the trial was organised for 16 March 2009.[4] However, at the procedural preliminaries (directions) hearing in January, the defendant made it known that given the seriousness of the case he would be represented by a QC (Queen's Counsel), after which the Crown Prosecution Service gave notice of its intention to similarly employ one. The trial was postponed to 29 June 2009.

Outcome

[edit]

Walker appeared at Newcastle Crown Court on that day. The prosecution withdrew its case after hearing evidence from an IT expert. The CPS explained that it had charged Walker as it believed that the story in question could be "easily accessed" by young fans of Girls Aloud. This was because of the definition of obscenity used in the act which requires prosecutors to prove that those exposed to the material were previously unaware of its obscene nature. Those who actively seek out such material are deemed unlikely to be corrupted by it.[5] However, the IT expert showed that the article could only be located by those specifically searching for such material. A spokesperson for the CPS said that the prosecution was unable to provide sufficient evidence to contradict this new evidence and therefore no longer saw a realistic prospect of conviction. Mr Justice Faulks, presiding, directed the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty to the charge.[2][6]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Ozimek, John (6 October 2008). "The Obscene Publications Act rides again". The Register.
  2. ^ a b Hughes, Mark (30 June 2009). "Blogger who wrote about killing Girls Aloud cleared". The Independent. London.
  3. ^ Sinclair, Blake. "Girls (Scream)Aloud". Kristen's Putrid Story Archive. Alt Sex Stories Text Repository. Archived from the original on 16 July 2007.
  4. ^ Fae, Jane (22 October 2008). "Date set for internet 'obscene' publications trial". The Register.
  5. ^ Peter Beaumont and Nichi Hodgson (7 January 2012). "Obscenity law in doubt after jury acquits distributor of gay pornography". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 November 2013.
  6. ^ "Man cleared over Girls Aloud blog". BBC News. 29 June 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R_v_Walker&oldid=1234641269"