Fined For Loitering (Press, 19 December 1978)

On 19 December 1978, Neville Robert Tilsley, a 27-year-old part-time student, was found guilty of loitering in the toilets of Sydenham Park with felonious intent. The offence occurred on 5 September of the same year. During the court proceedings, presided over by Mr A. Palmer, S.M., Tilsley was fined $240 and ordered to pay court costs of $10. Initially, Tilsley had pleaded guilty to the charge based on his counsel's advice, but he changed his plea to not guilty on the day of the trial. The evidence presented included testimony from Detective W. M. Haussmann, who had stopped at the park to relieve himself when he discovered Tilsley in the toilets. The detective observed Tilsley emerge from the toilets twice within a thirty-minute timeframe, prompting him to investigate further. When he approached Tilsley during the second visit, Tilsley allegedly remarked, "I think you know, it’s what you think," suggesting an awareness of the situation's implications. Following the incident, Tilsley was taken to Central Police Station for questioning. Constable B. G. Burrows testified that Tilsley identified himself as a homosexual during the interview. However, this admission was later denied by Tilsley in court. He contended that he had extended his stay in the toilets out of curiosity after noticing someone peering over the partition of one toilet cubicle into another. Tilsley's counsel, Mr M. J. Glue, argued that his client had refused to sign the police statement concerning the events, claiming it misrepresented the situation. The prosecution posed questions regarding Tilsley's past sexual encounters with men, to which Tilsley admitted that he had engaged in sexual acts. In defence of his client, Mr Glue highlighted Tilsley’s employment history with the Justice Department in Auckland and Timaru, asserting that his client would not pose a similar offence in the future. Despite Tilsley's request for suppression of his name, Magistrate Palmer ruled against it, stating that the public had the right to be informed about individuals like Tilsley. The case reflected the social attitudes towards homosexuality and public conduct during the late 1970s in New Zealand.

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