Magistrate’s Court “unprecedented” Defence Fails... (Press, 9 May 1970)

On 9 May 1970, the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court delivered a significant ruling regarding two men charged with homosexuality, marking what has been described as an unprecedented case in New Zealand. The defendants, whose identities were kept confidential, faced charges stemming from an incident on 20 March in Lyttelton, where one defendant, Mr G. R. Lascelles, was accused of performing an indecent act on the second defendant, Mr M. J. Glue. Lascelles was convicted and fined NZ$50, while Glue was discharged without conviction. Both men pleaded not guilty to the charges. Their defence revolved around unusual circumstances, with Glue arguing that he identified psychologically as female, despite being anatomically male. He called for leniency, asserting that the case showcased the inadequacies of the law in adapting to contemporary social realities. Lascelles supported this viewpoint, contending that the legal implications provided a peculiar and unfair scenario. The police became aware of the incident during a routine inquiry that led them to enter the defendants' home, where the alleged act took place. During the proceedings, the magistrate, Mr H. J. Evans, commented on the uniqueness of the defence presented, noting that it raised significant questions about the interpretation of sex and gender within the legal framework. A general practitioner testified that the second defendant was male, corroborating his anatomical characteristics while also acknowledging his pronounced femininity. This testimony led the magistrate to schedule further examinations by two specialists to assess Glue's psychological and physiological identity. The results from the specialists confirmed that while Glue was genetically male, his psychological disposition was female, leading to the conclusion that he could effectively live as a woman in society. The magistrate reflected on the complexities and implications of the defendants' sexual identities within the context of the law. He ultimately affirmed that both men had committed indecent acts towards each other but argued that their circumstances were reflective of deeper human issues rather than straightforward criminal behaviour. Mr Evans acknowledged the profound challenges posed by the legal definitions of gender and sexuality, describing Glue as “deviant, not criminal,” and decided to exercise discretion by allowing him a discharge from the legal proceedings without a conviction. This case not only highlighted the evolving understanding of sexual identity and orientation in New Zealand’s legal system but also set a precedent for future discussions around gender and the law. The magistrate's ruling underscored the necessity for the legal framework to evolve alongside societal changes relating to gender identity.

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