ISSUE:
Whether the expert evidence supporting the argument that the publication of obscene material could be beneficial for certain individuals' psychological health was admissible under section 4(2) of the Obscene Publications Act, which allows for the "public good" defense based on science, literature, art, or other objects of general concern?
RULE:
The "public good" defense is limited to interests in science, literature, art, learning, or similar domains, not all benefits.
Broad interpretations of “general concern” make specified categories redundant, so only certain benefits are considered for public good.
Determining public policy on obscene materials is Parliament’s role; juries cannot establish local obscenity standards.