High Court Slaughters Manhunt 2

Sir John Edward Mitting, born October 10th 1947 and appointed to the High Court, Queen's Bench Division on April 3rd 2001 has ruled against Rockstar games and its Manhunt 2 game. This could lead to the sale of the game being prohibited in the UK permanently.

However, Mitting pushed this ultimate decision back to the Video Appeals Commission (VAC). He stated that he didn't feel qualified to make such a decision as he had not worked on the case since its outset. He strongly suggested, however, that the VAC bear his thoughts on the subject in mind... the 'or else' was not stated.

Therefore the seven-member VAC panel will come together once more to 'decide' that the judge was correct.

The ruling revolved around the definition of 'harm' in law. Mr Justice Mitting ruled that the VAC had made an "error of law" because it had said that the game did not cause "devastating effects". Mitting's decision was that the game would cause some harm.

Mr Justice Mitting is also the gentleman who, last year, ruled that: "The death of an animal used in a regulated procedure for scientific experimentation was not an adverse effect which needed to be taken into account when deciding whether to grant a licence for such experiments. Rather, the statutory scheme governing such licences was concerned with the pain and suffering which animals might experience before death".

According to The Times report, "The words “adverse effect” were shorthand for “lasting harm” within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Act, by which a regulated procedure under the Act was one which “may have the effect of causing that animal pain, suffering distress or lasting harm”. Death was not lasting harm", according to Mitting's reading.

So, death of a real, living and breathing creature is all well and good (not an 'adverse effect') but is not 'lasting harm'. The death of a virtual character in a virtual world, however, is far too horrible for eyes to see.

We live in a world full of sense.

Mr Justice Mitting sat in an all-day session at the High Court yesterday before bringing down his judgement in favour of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in its contention that the Video Appeals Committee (VAC) had failed when it came to assessing the question of 'harm' under law.

The VAC had cleared the rated version of Manhunt 2 in the face of a proposed BBFC ban, leading the latter to appeal the case to the High Court in December last year.

The judge's ruling not only puts the brakes on Manhunt 2, it also lead the BBFC to state that it could have serious implications for the VAC's role as watchdog role "not only in relation to video games, but generally".

The ruling revolved around definitions - yet again - of 'harm'. We already know that Mitting thinks that death is not 'lasting harm'. The VAC, rightfully in our opinion, used the interpretation of 'actual harm' when applying its ruling. The BBFC and Mitting saw "potential harm and risk of harm" as the definition.

The ruling hinged on four judgements:

1) Was there any actual criminal content? There was deemed to be none (it's a virtual reality!)

2) Would it cause harm to adults? No, it was decided, it would not.

3) Was it likely to be viewed by minors? Yes, it would. So, parents and the BBFC's own rating system are all flawed.

4) Would harm be caused TO minors who played or viewed the game? No, it was decided, it would not!

Rockstar has responded to the ruling, saying: "We believe the VAC decision (to allow classification) was correct and do not understand the court's decision to expend further public resources to censor a game that contains content well within the bounds established by the BBFC's 18-plus ratings certification".

We do not know, however, whether it is illegal to bring a copy of the game legally purchased in Holland or online into the country.