Object In Shop Held Decent (Press, 21 October 1980)
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: Object In Shop Held Decent (Press, 21 October 1980)
A legal case involving Wellington's Venus Shop began after a complaint lodged by Miss Patricia Bartlett. This complaint led to a prosecution for allegedly selling an indecent object, specifically an artificial penis with a harness. The High Court in Wellington heard the case, with a jury ultimately acquitting Venus Shop Ltd of the charge. In his opening statement, Mr Justice Jeffries outlined the prosecution's argument, put forth by Crown Counsel Mr C. H. Tobgood. The shop acknowledged that it had sold the item in question, but the crux of the matter was whether the object could be classified as indecent. With no statutory definition of "indecent" in New Zealand law, the jury was tasked with interpreting the term based on common societal standards of decency. Supporting the prosecution's case, Detective C. G. Williams testified that she visited the Venus Shop on 22 September 1978 and purchased the artificial penis, which was displayed within the shop. She noted that the shop's windows were obscured by dark curtains, preventing passers-by from seeing its display items. Further testimony was provided by Detective Senior-Sergeant E. A. Stretton, who visited the store on 5 December 1978 and interacted with the shop's proprietor, Leslie John Brunell. Stretton pointed out that prior to September 1978, there had been no complaints to the police regarding any products sold by the shop. The investigation was initiated only after a formal written complaint from Miss Bartlett, who represented the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards. In defence of Venus Shop, Gerald William Kershaw Bridge, a consulting psychiatrist, provided evidence that the artificial penis could serve legitimate purposes, particularly in addressing sexual dysfunction issues and being beneficial for married couples looking to explore their sexual relationship. Ultimately, the jury made the decision to acquit Venus Shop, highlighting the complexities around defining indecency within the context of evolving societal standards. The outcome of the case underscored the broader debate surrounding sexual health products and their acceptance in New Zealand society at that time. The trial reflected the tensions between community standards and individual rights in the realm of adult entertainment and sexual wellbeing.
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