Court Upholds Decision On Nude Male Calendars (Press, 3 May 1986)

On 3 May 1986, the Court of Appeal in Wellington upheld a District Court Judge's ruling that calendars featuring nude males were not considered indecent under the Indecent Publications Act of 1963. The case arose when the Collector of Customs objected to a shipment of 20 illustrated calendars imported by Lawrence Publishing Company, Ltd, asserting they fell under the category of indecent publications. The Collector sought to prohibit the importation according to section 48 of the Customs Act. The District Court, presided over by Judge Blackwood in Auckland, heard the case and ultimately decided against the Collector, citing that the calendars did not pose any harm to the public good, a key criterion outlined in the Indecent Publications Act. Sir Owen Woodhouse, president of the Court, noted in his judgment that Judge Blackwood had applied the appropriate legal test and recognised existing divergences in judicial opinions regarding the interpretation of “indecent.” The decision was backed by the majority of the five judges on the bench, including Justices Cooke, Richardson, McMullin, and Somers. Justice Cooke emphasised the issues of legal precedent in the case, questioning whether the Court of Appeal could overrule earlier decisions made by a smaller panel, particularly when no new interpretations had emerged since. He noted their lack of direct engagement with the materials in question, specifically mentioning that they had not reviewed the specific calendar in question. Justice Cooke suggested that the case be sent back to the District Court for further consideration based on interpretations outlined in a separate precedent involving the media. Meanwhile, Justice Somers expressed his belief that the appeal should also be allowed to return the case to the District Court for reevaluation. In summary, the Court of Appeal's majority concluded that the imported calendars did not meet the standard of being deemed indecent, affirming the lower court's ruling and instigating a broader discussion on the interpretation of indecency within the legal framework.

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