Operation Spanner

[5] It also spawned two activist organisations dedicated to promoting the rights of sadomasochists: Countdown on Spanner and The Sexual Freedom Coalition, and an annual SM Pride March through Central London.

[13] The measure received broad support from Conservative MPs including Peter Bruinvels, who commented that "Clause 28 will help outlaw [homosexuality] and the rest will be done by AIDS".

[20] In 1976, following a three-year internal inquiry,[21] it was revealed that the squad had been running a protection racket over the Soho sex industry for at least two decades,[22] with Detective Superintendent William Moody alone receiving an estimated £25,000 a year in bribes.

[23] Prosecutors described a systemically corrupt organisation[24] in which new recruits were coerced into attending 'Friday night shareouts', during which officers would be taken one by one into a store room at Scotland Yard and handed cash.

[29] The squad gained significant notoriety during this period for its role in the 'video nasties' moral panic—during which its officers raided video rental shops and seized horror films such as Evil Dead II and The Driller Killer[30]—as well as a crackdown on gay pornography.

[40] A meeting was held to discuss the organisational structure of the expanded probe, and it was decided that the Obscene Publications Squad of the Metropolitan Police should lead the investigation, now called Operation Spanner.

[41] Activists and defence lawyers later questioned the likelihood of the men's consensual home sex videos being mistaken for snuff films,[36] leading Detective Superintendent Michael Hames of the Obscene Publications Squad to admit that he could not explain how such an error could have been made.

[34] Those interviewed during the raids described a loose knit circle of men who met through advertisements in gay contact magazines[1] and gathered regularly in various locations for sadomasochistic sex sessions, some of which were recorded to video and shared among the group.

[31] An officer with Greater Manchester Police denied that the operation was related to snuff films but went on to falsely speculate[36] that the investigation may be connected to an unsolved 1985 murder in Leeds.

Detectives consulted a recording of the episode and recognised their suspect in a sequence depicting a "special service of blessing" performed by a Church of England reverend for a gay couple.

[1] As the case began to come together, reporters were briefed that Operation Spanner "could be dealt with at the Old Bailey",[39] prompting speculation that indictable-only offences would be brought against the men.

[2] The fact that these charges were later dropped led to accusations that the government viewed the trial as a test case,[48] and intentionally sought to have it heard in Crown Court, where legal precedent could be set in the event of a guilty verdict.

Beginning on 11 December 1990, prosecutor Michael Worsley QC detailed the defendants' behaviour, which he characterised as "brute homosexual activity in sinister circumstances, about as far removed as can be imagined from the concept of human love".

[1] He described a group whose "nucleus" of key members "corrupted" others into attending "sessions of violence", where sadistic "masters" assaulted submissive "victims".

[52] Anna Worrall QC, representing one of the defendants, objected to a number of points raised by the prosecution, including the HIV status of some of the men, and the fact that police had taken sniffer dogs to the Shropshire raid, supposedly to search for buried bodies.

[1] At the end of the first day of the sentencing hearing, one of the defendants was hospitalised with broken wrists after allegedly being pushed to the ground and kicked by press photographers as he left the court.

[54] Two days before Judge Rant was due to sentence the men, Detective Superintendent Michael Hames, head of the Obscene Publications Squad, published an article in the Daily Mail in which he called the defendants "the most horrific porn ring ever to appear before a British court".

[58] However, Lord Lane acknowledged that the men did not appreciate that their acts were criminal, and therefore reduced five of the prison sentences handed down by Judge Rant, cutting the longest down to six months.

[38] She went on to list several reasons why the case should not have been brought to trial, including the fact that no complaint was ever made to police, no serious or permanent injuries resulted from the activities, and participation in the acts was controlled, and limited to those wishing to take part.

[62] There was immediate criticism of the investigation and trial in 1990, with the Gay London Policing Group describing the sentences as "outrageous" and Andrew Puddephat, general secretary of Liberty, calling for a "right to privacy enshrined in law".

[64] On 16 February 1991, an estimated 5,000 people marched through Central London to protest the outcome of the Spanner trial, as well as the proposed Clause 25 of the Criminal Justice Bill, which would have raised the penalties for cruising and cottaging.

[66] In August 1992, the campaign group Countdown on Spanner was formed in an effort to reverse the Court of Appeal ruling, and "demand the recognition that sadomasochism is a valid, sensual and legitimate part of human sexuality".