Film censors today failed in their High Court battle to ban the sale of explicit hardcore pornographic videos in licensed sex shops.

A High Court judge dismissed the British Board of Film Classification's test case challenge against the decision of its own Video Appeals Committee to permit seven "extremely explicit" videos to go on sale.

Mr Justice Hooper, sitting in London, ruled that the appeals committee was entitled to conclude "that the risk (of the videos in question) being viewed by and causing harm to children or young persons is, on present evidence, insignificant".

The judge said that that was a finding "that a reasonable decision-maker" could reach.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, for the BBFC, argued during the recent hearing that, unless its legal challenge was successful, all hardcore porn videos would have to be classified for sale in sex shops for home use, unless they were criminally obscene or it could be proved that their sale and use "will cause devastating harm to more than a minority of children and young people".

The case raised an issue "of considerable public importance as regards the correct approach to the classification of hardcore pornographic videos intended for home viewing", he said.

It concerned the proper construction of the 1984 Video Recordings Act, as amended by the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.

He argued that the appeal committee's view of the law was fatally flawed, and frustrated a statutory policy which stressed the need to protect children against being harmed by unnecessary exposure to pornographic videos which they might come across in the home.

But the judge disagreed, saying the appeal committee had carried out "a balancing exercise" and properly assessed the risk to children, and that there was no error of law.

The board brought the case to clarify the law prior to drawing up guidelines for the video industry.

This led it to the unusual step of challenging its own committee, the members of which, including the writers Fay Weldon and Nina Bawden, decided by a majority last August to allow appeals by distributors Sheptonhurst Ltd and Prime Time (Shifnal) Ltd against BBFC refusals to give R18 classifications to the seven videos.

The films were: Horny Catbabe, Nympho Nurse Nancy, TV Sex, Office Tart, Carnival International Version (Trailer), Wet Nurses 2 Continental Version and Miss Nude International Continental Version.

The R18 certificates, which allow the videos to be sold to adults in sex shops, are still being withheld pending the outcome of today's judgment.

Immediately after the ruling Mr David Pannick QC, appearing for Sheptonhurst, publicly called on the censors to issue the certificates now.

The BBFC was refused leave to appeal, but could still ask the Court of Appeal to consider the case.

Clive Sullivan, a consultant to Sheptonhurst Ltd, said afterwards that the decision did not "unleash the floodgates".

"It does make quite clear that there are still limits to be applied.

"It's just perhaps that the limits are slightly different to those applied previously." He denied that the ruling relaxed the rules on pornography that children might see, but said it applied to pornography that adults were permitted to buy.

"There are a few irresponsible adults in this country who permit children to have cigarettes and alcohol and perhaps some who permit children to see videos that are not appropriate for them.

"But we don't ban alcohol and cigarettes because of the irresponsible behaviour of a small minority."

Greg Hurlston, director of Prime Time, based in Telford, Shropshire, said he was "delighted" that the High Court had come down in favour of the appeals committee.

He said the videos were "double X" films showing penetration but not ejaculation. There were no close-ups and it was consensual sex.

Today's ruling did not mean that European companies would now start distributing extreme hardcore porn in Britain.