Jury Acquits Man Of Indecency (Press, 24 June 1976)

On 23 June 1976, a jury in the Supreme Court reached a verdict of not guilty for a man on alternative charges involving indecent acts with another male and escaping from lawful custody. Mr Justice Somers presided over the case, with Mr G. K. Panckhurst representing the Crown and Mesrs Lloyd Brown, Q.C., and M. J. Urquhart defending the accused, who maintained his innocence. The incident in question occurred on the night of 22 January 1976, when a constable on patrol entered the men's lavatory at the Christchurch City Council’s parking building. As the constable approached the first cubicle, he noted clothing on the floor and heard muffled voices. When he looked over into the adjacent cubicle, he observed the defendant, who was exposed and attempting to cover himself from the waist down while standing with his back to the door. After confronting the men, the constable instructed them to exit the cubicle, but the accused gave a false name and attempted to flee, leading to a struggle during his arrest. During this altercation, the defendant managed to break free and escaped through a door, leaving the constable unable to pursue him effectively. The trial featured testimonies from the defendant, his wife, and four character witnesses who presented him as a respectable individual. The Crown's case claimed the constable interrupted an act of oral masturbation between the two men, asserting that the nature of the conduct remained an offence despite calls for legal reform regarding consensual acts in private. Constable Glen Morris Gordon provided evidence, detailing the struggle he had with the defendant, who allegedly bit him multiple times during the confrontation. In his written statement to police, the defendant explained that he entered the lavatory and encountered another man leaning unconscious over the seat. Concerned for the man's wellbeing, the defendant claimed he examined the man for injuries, ultimately concluding that he was intoxicated. Upon being confronted by the constable, the defendant feared being misinterpreted due to the circumstances and decided to leave rather than risk being implicated in any wrongdoing. During closing arguments, Mr Brown emphasised the importance of the trial for his client, contending that the constable's observations were misinterpreted and that his limited experience influenced his conclusions. He highlighted the nature of the location as known to be frequented by homosexuals, suggesting that the constable's expectations led to a misunderstanding of the situation. In conclusion, after an extensive deliberation of two and a half hours, the jury decided in favour of the defendant, resulting in his discharge from court.

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