Homosexual Fined $l00 (Press, 19 September 1967)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Homosexual Fined $l00 (Press, 19 September 1967)
On 19 September 1967, the Magistrate's Court imposed fines totalling $100 on Donald Wilson Cock, a 44-year-old married grocer, who had pleaded guilty to two charges of committing indecent acts involving a male. The court proceedings stemmed from a previous case where Cock was discharged without conviction under section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act, which led to a Crown appeal that required the charges to be reheard. Cock faced fines of $50 for each charge of committing an indecent act and permitting an indecent act to be performed on him. Represented by Mr B. S. McLaughlin, it was noted that the other individual involved in the offences had since left the country. The police statement revealed that Cock had initially complained to the authorities about being robbed of £35 by the other man. The police investigation traced the events to 29 June 1967, when Cock and the other man met at a public toilet in St Albans Park before proceeding to Cock's shop where the acts occurred. In his sentencing, the Magistrate, Mr E. A. Lee, acknowledged Cock's previous good reputation and the community service he had provided, expressing that it was tragic for someone with such standing to face charges like these. However, he highlighted disturbing aspects of the case, noting Cock had given a false statement to claim repayment from an insurance company for the money he had lost to the other man, which constituted fraud. The Magistrate expressed particular concern regarding the location where the acts took place, describing it as objectionable due to the potential risk posed to innocent individuals, especially children, who might be exposed to such offences in public conveniences. He pointed out that the courts had consistently responded strongly to cases involving homosexuals frequenting these locations. While considering the expenses incurred by Cock due to the proceedings, the Magistrate ultimately decided against suppressing Cock's name, stating that the community, especially parents and individuals using public toilets, had the right to be informed about someone who engaged in such conduct. The case underscored the societal tensions and legal challenges surrounding homosexual acts during that period in New Zealand.
Important Information
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