Shaw v. DPP: Legal Analysis of Obscenity and Rule of Law Issues

This report provides an analysis of the landmark case of Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), focusing on the legal issues surrounding obscenity and the rule of law. The report begins with an introduction to obscenity laws in the UK, including the Obscenity Publications Act of 1959 and the historical context provided by R v. Hicklin. The core of the report examines the facts of Shaw v. DPP, where the appellant published a directory of prostitutes, and was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals. The analysis delves into the court's judgment, highlighting the creation of a new offense and the subsequent problems related to the application of retrospective effect and the infringement of the rule of law. The report concludes that the retrospective application of the law in this case violated the appellant's rights and the principle of equality before the law, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to the rule of law in cases involving obscenity and public morals. This report is a valuable resource for law students, offering a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles at play in this critical case.

Shaw v. DPP

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
TASK 1............................................................................................................................................3
Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutors..................................................................................3
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
Obscenity is often regarded as something which is obscene in nature and expresses
offensive attitude. In UK, the Obscenity Publications Act, 1959 deals with the crimes relating to
obscenity. Prior to this Act, the common law was applied while dealing with the cases of
obscenity which came from the case of R v. Hicklin (Antoniou and Akrivos, 2017). The law
created a new offence which punishes for publication of obscene material. The law provides two
defences which includes defence of innocent dissemination and defence of public good. This
report shall cover the problems present in Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutors in relation to
rule of law.
TASK 1
Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutors
The concept of rule of law states that law is above and supreme to every individual and
everyone is bound to obey the law. It also provides that everyone is equal in the eyes of law.
Facts of the case
The appellant has published a directory, namely 'Ladies Directory' which has listed the
contact details of the prostitutes together with the services which they offered with nude pictures.
The appellant use to charge a fee for including the details of prostitutes and sell it for the fees. He
was convicted under Obscene Publications Act for conspiracy to corrupt the public morals and
living on the income of the prostitutes. The appellant appealed against the conviction on the
ground that there is no such offence as to conspiracy to corrupt the public morals which existed
at the time of commission of offence.
Judgement
The court convicted the appellant for the offence and dismissed his appeal by creating a
new offence. The majority held that the law recognise the conspiracy to corrupt the public morals
as crime together with the fact that the law is prohibiting a behaviour which was on the books.
Problem in the decision
The House of Lords was of the opinion that the court's duty is to preserve a public
welfare and are regarded as the guardian of public morals (Dukore, 2020). They are entrusted
with a duty to punish and restrain the wrongdoer from encouraging something which corrupts the
mind of people.

The problems come as to the application of retroactivity. The retrospective effect given to
such crime may infringe the rights of Shaw. The crime which did not existed at the time of
commission of an offence cannot be given retrospective effect. But the court applied the
principle of non retroactivity and convicted the appellant for safeguarding the public morals.
The rule of law clearly states to apply the principle of equality before law but the
appellant did not get fair treatment while deciding the offence. Retrospective application of a
new offence may violate the personal liberty of an individual where he was punished for an
offence which did not existed at the time of committing the said offence.
CONCLUSION
From the above report, it is concluded that obscenity is a serious offence which may
corrupt the minds of an individual. In order to safeguard the public morals, it is important to have
a strict law against such crime (PJ, 2017). In the above discussed case, the conspiracy to corrupt
the public morals was not an offence at the time of committing the crime but was made newly at
the time of deciding the case. The retrospective effect given to the offence ave violated the right
of appellant and the rule of law where there was no fair treatment while deciding the case.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Antoniou, A.K. and Akrivos, D., 2017. Obscenity and Prosecution Practice in the Twenty-First
Century. In The Rise of Extreme Porn (pp. 25-69). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Dukore, B.F., 2020. Shaw’s Campaign Against the Censors: Press, Public Opinion, and
Parliament. In Bernard Shaw and the Censors (pp. 89-166). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
PJ, F., 2017. Outraging Public Decency: In Your Face and up Your Skirt-The Dynamism and
Limits of the Common Law. Hong Kong LJ, 47, p.33.