'Peep Show’ machine leads to prosecution

Press, 15 March 1980, Page 4

'Peep Show’ machine leads to prosecution

Slides of nudity and sexual poses, housed in a coinoperated machine labelled ;‘‘Adult Peep Show" in a city (food bar, had been taken from photographs in magazines sold in shops throughout New Zealand, it was submitted in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. In a prosecution brought under provisions of the Indecent Publications Act the owner of the shop was charged with exhibiting indecent documents — eight colour slides showing nude males and females in various poses in the shop on or about June 19 last year. The defendant, who denied the charge, was represented by Mr C. A. McVeigh. After completion of the prosecution case’ Mr J. S. Bisphan, S.M., remanded the defendant pn bail to March 28 for decision on the case, following receipt of written submissions from Mr McVeigh and the police. He will also consider legal references submitted on behalf of-the defence.

Sergeant J. J. Chadderton prosecuted. Prosecution evidence was given that two police officers visited a food bar at 11 a.m. on June 19, last year, and found a machine labelled “Adult Peep Show," with a viewing aperture at the top. The machine held 80 slides. Eight slides which were the subject of the charge included nude poses, and sexual portraits.

Fifteen slides were screened for a 20c coin, and each screened for a few seconds.

The 'shop proprietor, who leased the premises but did not own the machine, said he had seen teenagers use the machine. He had never seen young children at the machine.

I Detective R. Homan gavei (evidence of calling at the! ;shop and later seizing the] •machine. He said the defend-' ant, when questioned, said the slides were reproduced from pictures in "Playboy,” "Penthouse,” and "Oui” magazines. He had not taken the slides himself but had . got somebody else to take them. He had said the machine earned him about $lO a week He did not think the slides were ‘‘all that bad” but they would be “a wee bit too much for kids.” He considered' the machine was too high for children to view the slides. Cross examined, the detective agreed that the. slides were not “hard-core porn.” He was aware also that magazines such as those mentioned by the- defendant were available in book shops and were stocked on the shelves for shoppers to look at — not hidden under the counter. 1

He agreed that copies of other magazines to which he was referred, including a New Zealand publication, showed sexual activities, and close-up shots of nudes.

He was also asked about! the stage show. “Confessionsof a Window Cleaner,” cur-i rently touring New Zealand,and said as’far as he knew, it was being shown withouti any restriction, and news-• paper advertisements drew: attention to the fact that! there was nudity in theShow. . .. . i He said there had been a! complaint made to the police in Auckland about the show,;' but he was not aware of the! outcome. I Mr McVeigh said he' would not be calling defence; evidence. He said part of hisl; case would be that the slides on view were no worse thank material readily available to • the public in magazines. He then referred the ] Magistrate to legal refer- ( ences. .)