By PETER CALDER
The public morals watchdog group that has repeatedly sought to stop festival screenings of controversial films has had an award against it of legal costs of more than $4500.
The costs relate to a 2002 case in which the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards unsuccessfully sought a review of the classification of the French film Baise-Moi, and an injunction to prevent its screening while it appealed that decision.
The outcome of the society's action was that the classification was eventually approved for general release. Its classification of R18 for screening only in film festivals and for the purpose of tertiary study, was relaxed to R18 with content warnings. It had been scheduled for two festival screenings in each main centre, but when the classification was relaxed the distributor staged a six-print nationwide release which attracted more than 15,000 patrons.
In decisions handed down in the High Court at Wellington, Justice Goddard awarded costs of $4680 and disbursements against the society and in favour of the film's distributor, Metropolis. She rejected the society's argument that as a group acting in the public interest it should escape liability for costs.
The managing director of Metropolis, Gordon Adam, said the costs decisions - along with the earlier substantive decisions against the society - vindicated a censorship system which distributors were entitled to rely on.
"We should not be held to ransom by people who hide behind the guise of acting in the public interest and try to stop the release of films that have passed all the tests, just because they have a different opinion from everybody else."
The society is seeking leave to pursue the case against Baise-Moi to the Court of Appeal. Secretary David Lane declined to comment on whether the costs decision would make the society more reluctant to seek reviews of classifications.
He said the society had had costs judgements in its favour in other matters.
The director of the film festival, Bill Gosden, described the costs decisions as "further evidence that the provision in the law that allows the society to harass us is an anomaly that needs review".
The Society is seeking reclassification of two films, Anatomy of Hell and Twentynine Palms, in this year's festivals, but its applications for injunctions to stop screenings pending the review have been declined.
Morals watchdog hit with legal costs
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.