‘Aequus’ Charge Adjourned Again (Press, 1 October 1975)

The case against Paul Robert Harper Mating, a 60-year-old man, who has pleaded not guilty to charges under the Indecent Publications Act 1963 and the Crimes Act 1961, has been further adjourned to October 7, 1975, by Magistrate Mr E. S. J. Crutchley. The postponement allows both the defence and prosecution additional time to examine the details of the case. Mr Mating is accused of being involved in the printing of an indecent document, specifically the February 1975 edition of "Aequus," volume 2, number 2, which was reportedly printed by Michael Stephen Waghorn. The prosecution's case posits that Mr Mating contributed an article to "Aequus," which was then mailed to the complainant. Sergeant J. Palmer, representing the prosecution, contended that "Aequus" should be classified not as a book, but as a document. Under the current legal framework, if "Aequus" were categorised as a book, it would necessitate a ruling by the Indecent Publications Tribunal. The monthly publication "Aequus" operates like a newsletter, according to Sergeant Palmer, rather than a book or magazine in the traditional sense. Magistrate Crutchley expressed confusion over the jurisdiction in this matter, stating the need for the tribunal to make a determination if the case required it. He commented on the broad nature of what constitutes printed material, suggesting that if "Aequus" is to be considered a periodical, it would indeed qualify as a book under the relevant legislation. During the hearing, Mr Mating’s lawyer, Mr Maiing, challenged the legitimacy of the prosecution. He pointed out several discrepancies, including the fact that the informant, a police officer, had not been named and that his address was also undisclosed. Mr Maiing argued that the prosecution owed a duty to justice to provide complete particulars about the informant. He asserted that the case was improperly associated with the Crimes Act since it did not pertain to that statute. Instead, he suggested that the matter should have been under the Summary Proceedings Act. Moreover, Mr Maiing contended that there was no case to answer as the publication was not sold but rather distributed as part of a subscription for the Gay Liberation group. He stressed that it was inappropriate to cite two separate acts and sections in one piece of information, arguing for the dismissal of charges on these grounds. The Magistrate chose not to make any rulings until both the prosecution and defence had the opportunity to further analyse and discuss the case.

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