Lennon art trial secrets revealed

A detail from one of the offending "intimate and erotic" drawings

A prosecution over John Lennon's "erotic" drawings may have failed because of the implications for major art collections, it has been revealed.

Documents released by the National Archives show the thinking behind the 1970 case against an art gallery displaying the pictures of the Beatle having sex with wife Yoko Ono.

They show the Director of Public Prosecutions abandoned initial plans to pursue the gallery under the Obscene Publications Act, after another artist warned about the potential repercussions.

Instead, the gallery was prosecuted under a more obscure piece of legislation - and the case was thrown out after a tussle over the act's wording.

'Erotic'

The 14 lithographs in the Bag One collection showed Lennon and Ono in various sexual positions on their honeymoon.

The London Arts Gallery in New Bond Street described the works as "intimate and erotic", and planned to put the series on display for two weeks.

The lithographs were briefly on display in the London Arts Gallery

But on the second day the exhibition was raided by Scotland Yard, the show shut down and the gallery and its owner prosecuted.

The newly-released papers show the initial warrant was issued under the Obscene Publications Act.

And a letter from prosecuting counsel Kenneth Horn suggests a prosecution under this act would have a good chance of success.

But the file also preserves a letter from artist PFC Fuller of Maidstone, Kent, warning of the potential impact of a guilty verdict.

'Bleak future'

The letter said that if the "subject matter" formed the basis of the prosecution's case, all major collections in the world would potentially be in trouble.

"At least one such print will figure in all the important state and private collections," he wrote.

I understand that HM the Queen has some highly erotic work by Fragonard Letter warning of repercussions of a successful prosecution

If, on the other hand, it was the "standard" of the work, he said, then "the future of eminent collections... of primitive African, South American and Oriental art seems rather bleak".

The artist even warns that the monarch could end up being prosecuted if such a precedent was set: "I understand that HM the Queen has some highly erotic work by Fragonard."

Although it is not clear from the files whether Fuller's letter was behind the prosecution's change of tactics, it does appear that his arguments were taken seriously.

A new file was opened for the letter and he received a formal reply from the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions noting his concerns.

Tussle

And when the case went to court, gallery owner Eugene Schuster was prosecuted not under the Obscene Publications Act - but under a little-known section of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839.

The DPP's Kenneth Horn was irritated by the failure of the prosecution

The case was thrown out three weeks into the trial, following argument over the exact wording of the act.

The ruling clearly infuriated the DPP's Mr Horn.

He wrote in a memo afterwards that the magistrate had said proceedings under another law "would have been a different kettle of fish".

"I take this to mean that if the proceedings had been brought under the Obscene Publications Act of 1959 and 1964 that there would have been more chance of success," he said.