Their judgment was published in full, earlier this week, by blogger Obscenity Lawyer, a solicitor and one of the UK's leading legal experts providing advice to defendants on matters of obscenity and extreme porn.
The judgment states (par 21): There could be no sensible reason for the legislature having excluded otherwise obscene material from the scope of the legislation, merely because it was likely to be read by, and therefore liable to deprave and corrupt, only one person...
Weight is added to this contention by the IWF, who have told us that while they continue to report obscene adult content, hosted within the UK and publicly available online, they would not assess what was written in "a private online conversation".
The real danger lies in the fact that the history of UK law on matters sexual over the last couple of decades is that principles first introduced to protect children are often extended over time to other areas.
It opens up the possibility of more people being prosecuted for offences against children." So what difference does this make?
For all that, the CPS still maintains a list online of things THEY believe would attract a jury's disapproval.
During its long history it has been used to prosecute novels and images, invoked by the police seizing pornographic magazines and on one infamous occasion, tested out in respect of online publication - the "Girls (scream) aloud" case - though then, the audience was likely to be counted in the dozens if not hundreds.
We have four free, direct support services so you can get one-on-one help if and when you can't find what you need on the website, you need extra information or don't understand something you've read, or when you want support, help, advice or discussion from our staff, volunteers or peer community members.
Please remember or review our user policies and guidelines when using our direct services.