AI Chat Search Browse Media On This Day Map Quotations Timeline Research Free Datasets Remembered About Contact
☶ Go up a page

Appeal To Attorney-general (Press, 24 December 1982)

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: Appeal To Attorney-general (Press, 24 December 1982)

On 24 December 1982, an Auckland publishing company, Lawrence Publishing Company, lodged an appeal to the Attorney-General, Mr McLay, in response to the Customs Department's seizure of a shipment of male nude calendars. The company sought permission to initiate a legal suit for damages against the Customs Department after a High Court judge ruled that no legal action could proceed until the department received a determination regarding the calendars' indecency. Brett Sheppard, a director of the publishing company, expressed concern that the 1983 calendars would lose their market value by the time condemnation proceedings, scheduled for March, were held. Disputing the basis for the seizure, Lawrence Publishing commenced a claim for wrongful seizure in the District Court at Auckland. However, the Customs Department initiated its own proceedings, invoking a provision in the Customs Act that prohibits any legal action against it while condemnation proceedings are ongoing. Adding to the complexity, the Indecent Publications Tribunal had previously determined that it lacked jurisdiction over calendars. In light of these circumstances, the publishing company appealed to the High Court, seeking an expedited ruling on the matter. In his oral decision, Mr Justice Holland critiqued the delays present in the court system, noting that this had hindered the possibility of securing an early hearing. However, he concurred that the Customs Act should remain effective until the upcoming condemnation proceedings were resolved. Justice Holland remarked that the case represented a significant conflict between an individual and the executive branch, emphasizing that the executive had exercised immediate powers in this instance.

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

Creative Commons Licence The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand

Publish Date:24th December 1982
URL:https://www.pridenz.com/paperspast_chp19821224_2_36_2.html