The appellant operated a website containing audiovisual material and written stories depicting violence against women.
He was convicted of making, possessing, and distributing obscene material.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that adult nudity alone could amount to explicit sex for the purposes of obscenity.
The court ordered a new trial for the audiovisual counts but upheld the conviction for the written stories, which clearly depicted explicit sex and violence.
The sentence was varied to a $2,000 fine.
