Director of Public Prosecutions v. Jordan (1976) 3 All ER 775

Issues

• Can expert evidence claiming psychological benefits of obscene material be admitted under section 4’s “public good” defence?
• How narrowly should “other objects of general concern” be read in section 4?
• Who decides broad policy on obscenity standards—juries or Parliament?

Rules

1. Section 4 “public good” is tied to science, literature, art, or learning (and closely similar fields).
2. Reading “general concern” broadly would make those named fields pointless. So, read it narrowly.
3. Policy on obscenity is for Parliament. Juries do not set local community standards under this Act.

Arguments

Judgment

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. The expert psychological evidence was inadmissible. The “public good” defence does not cover therapeutic claims; it focuses on value in science, literature, art, or learning (and similar areas).

• When section 4 is raised, the court first assumes the material would deprave and corrupt; the question is whether recognised public good nonetheless justifies publication.
• “Other objects of general concern” must be read noscitur a sociis—in line with the listed domains.
• Policy choices on obscenity are for Parliament, not local jury standards.

Ratio

Section 4’s “public good” is a narrow cultural-knowledge shield, not a general utility shield. Evidence of literary, scientific, artistic, or educational merit may count; therapeutic effect evidence does not.

Why It Matters

• Clarifies the scope of section 4 and guides which experts are relevant.
• Stops juries from making policy-by-verdict on obscenity.
• Helps prosecutors and defence plan evidence strategy in obscenity cases.

Key Takeaways

• “Public good” = value in S-L-A-L (Science, Literature, Art, Learning).
• Therapy claims ≠ public good under section 4.
• Assume “deprave and corrupt” first; then test for protected value.
• Policy is for Parliament; juries apply the statute.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SLaL, not Psyche” — Public Good protects Science, Literature, art, Learning; not psychological utility.

1. Spot the defence: Is section 4 raised?
2. Screen the evidence: Does it show S/L/A/L value?
3. Strike out therapy-only claims as inadmissible.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Whether expert psychological benefit evidence fits section 4’s “public good”.

Rule: Public good covers science, literature, art, learning (and similar). Narrow reading of “general concern”.

Application: Therapy benefit does not show value in the protected fields; admitting it would expand policy beyond Parliament’s design.

Conclusion: Evidence inadmissible; convictions stand.

Glossary

Public Good Defence

A shield for works valuable to society in science, literature, art, or learning.

Deprave and Corrupt

The legal test for obscenity under the 1959 Act.

Noscitur a Sociis

Words take colour from their neighbours; here, “general concern” aligns with S/L/A/L.

FAQs

Related Cases