Dress ruled indecent

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33141, 3 February 1973, Page 3

Dress ruled indecent

; (N.Z. PrcsS Association) i WELLINGTON, Feb. 2. I I The charge of exhibiting an indecent document against a 30-year-old man who wore a dress patterned with nude figures in Wellington was found proved in the Magistrate’s Court today.

In a reserved decision, Mr W. J. Mitchell, S.M., convicted the man and fined him $6O, with witnesses’ expenses of $3.25. A final order for suppression of name was made.

The Magistrate said that although the sexual organs had been blacked out in the pat-

itern, the display was one of I sexual activity, including intercourse and sodomy. He said the defence counsel, Mr B. E. Buckton. conI ceded the dress could be constituted as an indecent docu;ment under section two of the Indecent Publications Act. Under the act it had to be [proved the depicting of such a pattern was injurious to the ! public good. “It is not necessary to show definitely that the dress was indecent, but merely to show a tendency that it may be injurious to the public good,” he said. Also, the burden of proof lay with the accused, although he said himself he did not believe it was indecent.

“However, I believe he had reasonable cause to believe the dress was indecent,” the Magistrate said.

I “Also bearing in mind that -the public may have been offended by the dress; 1 have no doubt the dress had an immoral or mischievous tendency. Therefore the case is proved,” he said. Before the sentencing by the Magistrate, Mr Buckton submitted that the charge was brought as a test case to see how far the Court would go in its interpretation of indecency. “Therefore, I submit he should be discharged under section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act.” Rejecting this, the Magistrate said a fine was warranted. He suppressed the name of the accused because, he said, of the man’s “obvious inadequacies” and also [because of the “test case” ! aspect.