Family Group Asks Crown to Appeal ‘Naked Jogger’ Case
MEDIA RELEASE
3 December 2012
Family Group Asks Crown to Appeal ‘Naked Jogger’ Case
Family First NZ has written to the Crown
Solicitor asking them to review the acquittal of a naked jogger in the
Tauranga High Court last week, and is asking them to appeal
the decision.
In the letter, they say:
“We
believe the decision sets a dangerous precedent and sends
the message that public nudity will not be deemed to be
offensive behaviour, even if families and children are
offended. Ironically, the Judge was clothed at the time of
sentencing, as was Mr Pointon, and his lawyer. We are
certain that if Mr Pointon had turned up to the court naked,
he would have been instructed to get clothed.
Section 125 of the Crimes Act clearly states that
it is a crime to “wilfully (do) any indecent act in any
place to which the public have or are permitted to have
access, or within view of any such place.” In Mr
Pointon’s case, it was clearly indecent. It was in a
public place at a time when it was quite reasonable for
children and families to be present and to be confronted by
the exhibitionist. It is also highly likely that both the
children and the parents would be offended by the behaviour
and what they saw.
Families are
rightly concerned that they and their children may be
confronted by full nudity in a public place. Freedom of
expression must never be at the expense of the right to
protect children and families from offensive and
inappropriate behaviour. We would not allow nudists to
expose themselves in shopping centers or outside schools.
Doing it on the beach or on a public running track where
there are families is no different. Most New Zealanders know
it is indecent and inappropriate to be naked in a public
place – which is why there is no acceptance of the
behaviour in schools, workplaces or public gatherings.
ECPAT (End Child Prostitution, Child
Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes)
International’s New Zealand director Alan Bell said
exposing a child to naked adults was “tantamount to
abuse”.
Families don’t want their
children being confronted by naked men and women. The rights
of nudists to ‘hang loose’ should not be at the expense
of families feeling embarrassed or offended. It is
completely inappropriate for children to be confronted with
naked adults running past them or sunbathing. It is not for
families to ‘get out of the way’. The nudists should
simply cover up. There’s a place for nudity, but it is
certainly not on our main streets or beaches or public parks
which families and children use.
Justice Paul Heath has got it wrong, and we would
call on the Crown to appeal the sentence. This case sets a
dangerous precedent and means that families are more likely
to be confronted by offensive and inappropriate behavior in
public places where they should feel safe about taking their
children.”
ENDS