Trial Jury Sees “hair” On Stage (Press, 21 March 1972)

The trial of Harry M. Miller Attractions, Ltd. regarding the musical "Hair" commenced in the Supreme Court of Auckland on 20 March 1972. The company faced charges of presenting an indecent show, stemming from the opening night of "Hair" on 26 February. The company, represented by Mr L. W. Brown, Q.C. and Mr M. B. Williams, contested the charge, while Mr D. S. Morris represented the Crown. During the trial, Mr Brown asserted that jurors should view the performance to better understand the context of contested segments, a request granted by Justice McMullin. He emphasised the relevance of the jurors seeing the show in determining if the public good was served by its production. The jury attended a performance of "Hair," with specific instructions from the judge to sit discreetly to avoid distraction. The trial had attracted significant attention following its initial staging and the Attorney-General's approval for the prosecution. Mr Morris cautioned the jury about potential preconceived opinions they might hold due to the extensive discussion surrounding the show in the media. He stressed that their judgment should solely rely on the evidence presented in court, as they were to decide only on what occurred during the opening night. The prosecution centred on the notion of public morality outlined in section 124 of the Crimes Act, posing the question of whether the performance contained elements that could be deemed indecent by societal standards. Mr Morris maintained that certain acts depicted in the show, such as simulated sexual activities and drug use, were likely to be considered 'despicable and repugnant' by right-thinking people. Witness testimony included that of Patrick John Booth, editor of the Roman Catholic weekly "Zealandia," who described the emphasis on sexual acts and language in the performance as overt and troubling. He reported repetitions of a particular four-letter expletive and the appearance of nude cast members, indicating strong lewdness throughout the performance. While Booth acknowledged the essence of exaggeration in satire, he articulated a personal stance against allowing his son to see the show due to its explicit content. Margot Jacquiline Hudson, a secretary who attended the opening, expressed an appreciation for the music but also noted the offensive nature of certain acts and language present. Detective Chief Inspector E. G. Perry also provided evidence, having attended multiple performances. He noted the play's themes, linking them to anti-Vietnam war sentiments and the societal context of drug awareness during that era. As the trial progressed, the Crown maintained that the performance as a whole fell beyond acceptable societal boundaries and called on jurors to evaluate its contents against the standards of decency while also confirming the nudity and vulgarity presented were pivotal in their assessment of the show's appropriateness in New Zealand. The outcome of the case would heavily influence perceptions and definitions of indecency in theatrical productions moving forward.

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