Trails Of Oz Case Study

The trails of OZ * Three editors of a magazine (OZ) were charged on three counts: conspiracy to corrupt public morals, an obscene article, and an indecent object sent through the post. * The edition of the magazine was not a great edition of the magazine. It had descriptions of oral sex and an offensive ‘Rupert the bear’ cartoon strip. * The judge was Michael Argyle Q.C.; who would impose heavy sentences ‘if the jury convicted.’ * The jury was drawn from a particular social group (People who owned property); thus none were pre-disposed to the type of journal OZ was. * The prosecution had the magazine as its only exhibit and the court was told that it was ‘unacceptable from a family point of view’. * Dr. Edward De
Eventually on the day of sentencing the judge is unmoved by the protests and sentences them all to jail for varying terms. He also compliments the ‘obscene Publications Squad’ for their good work. * There were protests and an appeal was prepared as was a bail hearing. The appeal judge granted bail seemingly to appease his young daughter and the three were released. At the appeal the Chief judge seemed to be on the side of the prosecution but after lunch he dismissed all charges because he was convinced there was worse pornography out in the streets. * Later the detective in charge of the case said that ‘I’m doing it for out children’. The magazine itself died off and the editors went their separate ways. The result of the trial was that it opened up the way to eliminate political censorship but also a world of commercial exploration of sex. * The Oz trial also ended these sorts of trials and not many prosecutions are conducted anymore. If they are conducted they only serve to add publicity to the individuals on trial. Two examples that Robertson gives are Johnny Rotten’s ‘Never Mind the Bollocks’ trial and the Spycatcher trial. * Robertson finishes the chapter by telling us about the play that he wrote about the