DISSENTING OPINION OF Mrs. J. LIDDY

                    JOINED BY Mr. I. BÉKÉS

     On balance, it appears to me that the applicant has not shown

that the words of the Recorder could only be interpreted as meaning

that the applicant was still suspected or was guilty of the offence of

which he had been acquitted.  I note that while the majority of the

Commission consider that the obvious construction of the Recorder's

words is to the effect that he believed the material to be obscene,

they do not fully take account of the fact that the Recorder had

discretion in domestic law as to whether to make a defendant's costs

order or not.  A non-exhaustive list of examples of reasons for

exceptionally refusing to make such an order after acquittal is

contained in the Practice Direction of 3 May 1991.  It seems to me that

the Recorder's words can equally be construed as meaning that in

addition to examples (a) and (b) set out in that Practice Direction,

he was entitled to use his discretion to refuse a costs order where the

nature of the defendant's occupation involved testing the extent to

which the law permitted the sale of salacious material and testing the

borderline beyond which such material would be regarded as obscene

within the meaning of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (as amended).

     Accordingly I have voted against a finding of violation.