Clause 52
Coroners and Justice Bill
8:15 pm
Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)
The amendments follow on from the debate that we have just had and seek to probe the definitions in the clause. The Minister has just said that we are talking about the worst, the most horrific cases and so on—the absolute pinnacle of horror. The definitions, however, are incredibly broad, so I tabled the amendments to see if there is a way that they could be tightened up.
Amendment 489 refers to
“a moving or still image (produced by any means).”
Clearly, that is a very broad definition. I understand that the Government intend to make illegal Japanese anime and particular types of cartoon that are lifelike and extremely graphic. Such cartoons that the Government have in mind are primarily computer generated. My amendment proposes to tighten the words
“an image (produced by any means)”
which could mean chalk on a board or pen on a piece of paper, and bring them closer to the Government’s original intention. We have already had a discussion about what the provision could include. It is not just hon. Members on this Committee who have concerns. In the response to the consultation, the Durham constabulary, among others, was concerned about the broad swathe of images that would be brought in, and the fact that it would include drawing as well, which was not the Government’s original intention. Therefore, my aim is to try focus down the definition.
Amendments 490 and 491 refer to how the age of the person depicted in the images is defined. The first one relates to subsection (6)(a) in which it says
“the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child”.
That is extremely subjective. What I propose in the amendment—and what I should like to draw the Minister’s response on—is to put in a reasonableness test so that rather than the decision on the image being a subjective view it is one
“that a reasonable person would consider”.
Subsection (6)(b) states that
“the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.”
Clearly, when we have a photograph of an actual person it is much easier to determine someone’s age. We can work out how old they were when the photograph was taken. When it is an imaginary figure that is drawn, a number of concerns have been raised— including in some of the responses to the consultation—that Japanese art forms in particular are often ambiguous, so it is difficult to decide how old the figure is. My amendment proposes to delete the entire subsection. I know the thinking behind it is obvious, but I am not sure how it can be properly implemented without pulling into it all manner of things that probably should not be illegal. For example, images of an 18-year-old who is dressed as a child, such as Britney Spears in a pop video, clearly is not illegal. If it was a drawing, however, it could be illegal because it would be very difficult to work out whether the person in the picture was supposed to be over 18 or under 18 and dressed up as a school girl.