FILM QUOTA

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 37, 13 February 1930, Page 9

FILM QUOTA

THE LAW'S INSISTENCE FIRST PROSECUTION (From "The Post's" Representative.) LONDON, 23rd December. Film Booking Offiaes, Ltd., one of ihe largest firms of film renters in the country, was fined £25 and 50 guineas costs at the Marlborough Street Police Court on 18th December, for failing to ' comply with the requirements of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927. They acquired only 6.1 instead of the required quota of 7.5 per cent, of British films for exhibition during the year. The summons was the first under the Act. The Magistrate, Mr. Dummett, in his .judgment, said it was entirely the fault of the company that they failed to comply with the Act. Tlie company pleaded that they were unable to acquire another picture in the place of' a Canadian film which the Board of Trade refused to accept as British. "It appears from the evidence of the prosecution," said -Mr. Dummett, "that the defendants have failed to provide during the first year that this Act has been operative the proper quota for British films. If, under the Act, it appears to the Board of Trade that the reasons for non-compliance were b,oyond the control of the exhibitor or renter, then the Board of Trade may issue a certificate to that effect, and that certificate is practically an exemption. It is also open to the renter to show that although there •were British films available, nevertheless, by reason of their character or excessive cost, they were not commercially practicable." He found that the company failed to discharge the onus of proof. Referring to the Canadian picture, Mr. Dummett said it was produced in Hollywood. Mr. Enders, managing director of the company, did not satisfy him that his reasons for non-compli-ance were beyond the control of the defendants. He (Mr. Enders) admitted that he could have produced a British film himself within the time. "He left me with tho strong conviction that he and his company wholly failed to appreciate tho urgency of the position and the necessity to bestir themselves much moro than they did." In deciding the fine, he took into consideration that the company had only failed to acquire the quota by 1 per cent. Mr. IT. D. Roome, prosecuting, applied for six further summonses on behalf of the Board of Trade. This was a kind, of test case. The Magistrate granted the application.