Dress Ruled Indecent (Press, 3 February 1973)
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: Dress Ruled Indecent (Press, 3 February 1973)
On 2 February 1973, a 30-year-old man in Wellington was found guilty of exhibiting an indecent document in the Magistrate’s Court. The case revolved around the man wearing a dress that featured a pattern of nude figures. Magistrate W. J. Mitchell ruled that the dress constituted an indecent document under the Indecent Publications Act and imposed a fine of $60, along with witnesses' expenses totalling $3.25. In his ruling, the Magistrate noted that while the sexual organs depicted on the dress had been obscured, the pattern still suggested a display of sexual activity, including intercourse and sodomy. Defence counsel B. E. Buckton acknowledged that the dress could be seen as indecent under the Act. The legal standard required to prove the indecency focused on whether the depiction was potentially harmful to the public good, rather than proving it was definitively indecent. The Magistrate stated that it was not crucial to demonstrate the dress was categorically indecent but rather to show that there was a tendency for the dress to cause harm to societal morals. He remarked that, despite the accused believing the dress was not indecent, he had reasonable cause to assume otherwise. The Magistrate concluded that given the likelihood of public offence, the dress had an immoral or mischievous tendency, thus validating the case against the defendant. Prior to sentencing, Mr. Buckton claimed that this charge was intended as a test case to explore the court's interpretation of indecency. He requested the accused be discharged under section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act. However, the Magistrate rejected this plea, asserting that a fine was justified based on the circumstances. He also issued a suppression order for the accused's name, citing the man’s personal inadequacies and the test case nature of the situation as reasons for confidentiality.
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