Supreme Court Crown Appeals Against Decision On... (Press, 1 September 1967)

On 1 September 1967, the Crown appealed to the Supreme Court regarding a decision made by a magistrate to vacate convictions against two men for charges related to homosexual activities. During the appeal, Mr C. M. Roper, representing the Crown, argued that the case warranted serious legal scrutiny due to the nature of the offences, which involved indecent acts and could have resulted in significant prison sentences. He highlighted that the two men had engaged in indecent behaviour in public restrooms before going to one of the men's houses, where their activities continued. The older man was 44 years old, and the younger man was 22, with allegations of blackmail surfacing as part of the incident. Roper contended that the magistrate, Mr H. J. Evans, had overstepped his jurisdiction by vacating the convictions and discharging the men under the Criminal Justice Act. He asserted that the magistrate's decision was unduly influenced by external factors such as the Wolfenden report, legislative considerations from England regarding homosexuality, and various societal views on the matter. These considerations were deemed irrelevant under the statutory framework governing the case, which required that discretion be exercised based on the specific circumstances at hand. Mr G. R. Lascelles, representing one of the men, defended the magistrate's actions, arguing that they were in alignment with common sense and a judicial approach to justice. Lascelles urged that the magistrate's decision should not be dismissed merely because it was subject to differing opinions or perspectives on the matter. He referenced past judicial opinions that supported the notion of evolving public policy impacting judicial decisions over time. The attorney general, Mr Hanan, was cited as having some alignment with these views regarding the consideration of public sentiment in legal matters. The hearing involved extensive debate about the proper use of judicial discretion and whether the magistrate acted appropriately according to the law. While Roper argued that the exercise of discretion was improper given the severity of the crimes, Lascelles asserted that the existing legal framework bestowed broad discretion on the magistrate, which he exercised judiciously. The case highlighted the tension between legal statutes and evolving social norms surrounding homosexuality, especially as indicative legislative changes were taking place elsewhere. The magistrate's approach was under scrutiny for potentially anticipating changes in the law and diverging from the rigid application of criminal statutes. After several hours of discussion, the presiding judge indicated he would provide a ruling on the case the following day, underscoring the complexity of balancing legal principles with societal changes and judicial discretion in the context of criminal law.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand