Indecency Charge Defended (Press, 22 February 1977)

On 22 February 1977, a hearing was held regarding indecent publication charges against Michael Stephen Waghorne, a former editor of the Gay Liberation Front newsletter "Aequus." Waghorne, 33 years old and an assistant management services officer for the Department of Health, faced a charge for printing an article he purportedly had reasonable cause to think was indecent in February 1975. The case garnered attention due to the nature of the content and the implications for freedom of expression within the LGBTQ+ community. During the hearing, a "Playboy" article was cited as one of the exhibits. In evidence, Waghorne defended the article titled "An Introduction to Anal Intercourse," arguing that it was not indecent as similar materials were widely available in shops. He pointed out that such content was accessible and socially accepted, noting that an article written by Germaine Greer in "Playboy" was an example of this. Waghorne's involvement with the Gay Liberation Front began while he was pursuing a master's degree at the University of Canterbury. After completing his studies, he took on the role of editor for the newsletter. He asserted that the article by Paul Harper-Maling reflected the views of a homosexual and that publishing such material was a legitimate expression, particularly as it was distributed solely to the 130 members of the Gay Liberation Front, most of whom were homosexuals. Detective Sergeant R. Powell testified that the police had received multiple complaints regarding the February edition of "Aequus." Crown Prosecutor Mr D. J. L. Saunders mentioned that the Indecent Publications Tribunal had previously deemed the article indecent. Thus, the responsibility rested on the defence to demonstrate that there was no immoral or mischievous intent behind its publication. Waghorne's counsel, Mr P. H. B. Hall, sought to have the charge dismissed, arguing that there were inconsistencies (duplicity) in the sections of the Indecent Publications Act listed in the charge. He also highlighted that Waghorne's name had been misspelled in a statement from the Attorney-General related to the prosecution. The Magistrate, however, ruled that both arguments were without merit, stating that the spelling of Waghorne's name was inconsequential to the case. As the hearing unfolded, it raised important questions about censorship, artistic expression, and the rights of individuals to share and access diverse viewpoints, especially in the context of the gay rights movement during the 1970s. The Magistrate reserved his decision, leaving the outcome of the case pending.

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