I can provide some background on this as I know the UK model who was the source of the criminal complaint.
The only film featuring this model that was commercially released was Royal Raw Auditions 1, from Puppy Productions. This has, I think, now been withdrawn from sale by Puppy - although there still seem to be lots of copies around:-
http://www.radvideo.com/details/PUP2...py+Productions
The model on the left of the front cover (as you look at it) - Richard in the cast list - was the source of the original complaint - because he had not been paid for several shoots. He is not however the 16 year old model referred to in the court case - this I think is the model called "Harry" in that film.
Royal Raw Auditions has never been released in Europe because of this investigation, which actually began nearly three years ago.
Rufus Ffoulkes has directed and sourced models for a huge amount of UK films over the last two years, released by companies such as LoadXXX, Bareback Boys, Helix and Eurocreme. There is no indication that underage models were used in any of these - in fact all of the UK releases (from LoadXXX and Bareback Boys) have been certified by the BBFC (British Board Of Film Classifications) - and conclusive proof of age documents have been produced to the BBFC for all of those films. This also applies to the Daddy Darby dvds.
Other than the Helix dvds, very few of these have been released in the US. So, in terms of suspect films on the market anywhere in the world, the only film directly affected by this court case is Royal Raw Auditions 1.
I have no wish to defend Ffoulkes in this matter apart from to say that the sentence is not unduly lenient. Both the models concerned worked for him willingly and there was accepted mitigation presented that it was poor ID verification by Ffoulkes rather than a deliberate attempt to film underage models. If there was evidence that he enticed the models into doing porn, the sentence would have been much greater.
The 1981 incident with the 13 year old was when Ffoulkes himself was 21 and, while deplorable, would not have had a great affect on his sentence this time. His large number of previous offences for fraud would have though!
Bookmarks