Male ‘cannot Be Prostitute’ (Press, 25 November 1972)
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: Male ‘cannot Be Prostitute’ (Press, 25 November 1972)
On 25 November 1972, a Supreme Court judge in Auckland ruled that New Zealand law does not recognise males as prostitutes. The case involved William Rangi, who had appealed a conviction for soliciting male passers-by for homosexual prostitution while loitering on a street. Justice Woodhouse examined whether the term "common prostitute" within the Police Offences Act could apply to males. This issue had previously caused differing opinions in the Auckland Magistrate’s Court. One magistrate, Mr C. E. H. Pledger, concluded that the term did not include males, while another, Mr H. Y. Gilliand, disagreed and applied the term to Rangi's case. Ultimately, Justice Woodhouse sided with Pledger, expressing regret over the ruling's implications but stating that the traditional understanding of "common prostitute" pertained specifically to women. Woodhouse articulated that to extend this definition to include males would be an example of judicial legislation, despite acknowledging the need to manage such activities. He further noted that in the United Kingdom, the actions of male prostitutes are governed by specific laws. In contrast, New Zealand appeared to lack a corresponding legal framework and suggested that Parliament should address this emerging issue.
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