Regina (on the application of British Board of Film Classification) v. Video Appeals Committee
England and Wales High Court of Justice
Case No. CO/11296/2007 (2008)
- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
The Video Recordings Act of 1984 governed the distribution of video games in the United Kingdom. The act stated that a video game was subject to censorship if it depicted “to any significant extent . . . mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards humans or animals.” The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) reviewed and classified video recordings into specific categories in accordance with the act. In making any determination, the act required the BBFC to have special regard to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers. Rockstar Games Inc. submitted the video game “Manhunt 2” to the BBFC for review and classification. The BBFC refused classification because the game depicted unremitting violence towards humans and posed harm to potential viewers, such as children. Rockstar appealed to the Video Appeals Committee (VAC) (defendant), who allowed the appeal and classified the game on the basis that it did not present any actual harm to potential viewers. In arriving at its decision, the VAC relied on a statement that a Home Office minister made when introducing the act, to the effect that video games should be censored only if the game has a devastating effect on those who view it. The BBFC sought judicial review of the VAC’s decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mitting, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
