Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 173 (Jan)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Judge:

Mitting J

Representation Andrew Caldecott QC and Ian Helme (instructed by Goodman Derrick) for the claimant.
  Geoffrey Robertson QC and Guy Vassall-Adams (instructed by Harbottle & Lewis) for the committee.
  The interested party did not appear and was not represented.
Judgment Dates: 24 January 2008

Catchwords

Video recording - Classification certificate - Supply of video game - Claimant deciding not to give classification to game - Interested party appealing to Video Appeals Committee - Committee directing itself that actual harm had to be caused to gamer - Committee allowing appeal and making R18 certification - Whether committee misdirecting itself in law - ss 4, 4A.

The Case

On its true construction, of the Video Recordings Act 1984 was directed to any harm that might be caused to a gamer; that included prospective harm, not merely actual harm. If Parliament had intended that it was necessary to demonstrate that harm had been caused to a child by reference to works similar to that which classification had been sought, then the words 'that may be' in s4A(1) would have been omitted, so that the statutory phrase would have read, 'to any harm caused'.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.