National Committee

President Traven Searle

(0061) 7831 1731

Vice President John Groombridge

(North Island)          (04) 589 5461

Vice President Joyce Fleming

(South Island)         (03) 322 7990

Secretary Jackie Caldwell

 

TreasurerJohn Groombridge

(04) 589 5461

Members

Ian Bushett(04) 237 0193

John Lowe

Steve Wilkinson(03) 325 3316

Correspondence should be mailed to the official FBG address

LOCAL CONTACTS

Auckland Jan Winn

(09) 482 0134

Tauranga Ted Lidgard

(07) 542 2344

Waikato Roger Morris

(07) 856 8857

Taranaki John Lowe

(06)

Hawkes Bay Butch Hickmott

(06) 835 7146

Sthn Hawkes Bay Hugh Bowles

(06) 374 6238

Wellington Meryl Baker

(04) 528 7010

Linda Geeves

(04) 478 4820

Christchurch Joyce Fleming

(03) 322 7990

Steve Wilkinson

(03) 325 3316

Old Macdonald's Farm

A new clothes optional Van Park and Camping Ground, to be known as The Bull Paddock Van Park has opened. It is situated in a secluded 10 acre corner at the western end of Old Macdonald's Farm at Marahau; with the Marahau River as one boundary, and is about 5 minutes walk from the start of the Abel Tasman National Park Walkway and beaches. The owners have riparian rights on the river which is the southern boundary of the entire 100 acre farm. There are safe areas for children to play and swimming holes suable for cooling off.

At the eastern end of the property there is a small Farm Park area with various animals (including alpaca and llama), and a variety of domestic birds.

The camping area has 34 powered sites, mostly 10 metres by 15 metres, and has ample space for tents. There is a secure lock-up area for those wishing to leave a vehicle for a few days while walking in the Park.

For more details, write to:
Doug, Lynn & Craig Macdonald Harvey's Rd, Marahau RD2, Motueka, Nelson.
Phone: 03 527 8288 Fax: 03 527 8289

Sounds Recreation

Members visiting Marlborough Sounds are invited to contact Ed Knowles of Sight On The Sounds who operates half day and full day excursions. Tell Ed you are a member of the FREE BEACH GROUP and he will arrange a trip to take advantage of the nudist lifestyle.

Ed can be contacted at Sight On The Sounds, Private Bag, Canvastown. Ph: 03 574 2144

NZNF Rally Sports Team

FREE BEACH GROUP members attending the NZNF National Rally at the Wellington Sun Club from 27 December 95 to 2 January 96 are asked to make contact with Andrew or Jenny Christie (phone 04 476 3394) to make up FREE BEACH GROUP teams to to participate in various sporting events starling Friday 29 December.

History: 2 November 1902

Sydney bather William Goexher arrested at Manley Beach, Sydney for wearing a swimsuit in daylight.

Ngatuhoa 96
Errata!!

The item in the last newsletter had an error in the dates for the communal chicken barbecue.
The item should have been as follows:

Those arriving on Monday are invited by the Ngatuhoa's internationally acclaimed chefs, Bill and Fern, to bring a frozen #8 chicken for a communal barbecue on Tuesday evening.

On Friday, the famous Bill and Fern team (as seen on TV) will roast another succulent pork on a spit, so bring a $5 note and some vegetables, wine and deserts to complement your share.

Saturday will be your opportunity to participate in a rerun of an ancient Greek nude event, the Ngatuhoa triathlon.

Saturday night is the night of the ever popular fancy (un)dress ball, and the theme this year will be Holy (holely?) Raiment.

An information sheet/enrolment form was enclosed with the last newsletter. All welcome, bring a friend.

For more details:

phone Bill and Fern at 09 832 0544

or John at 04 589 0906 (week days),

04 589 5461 (nights/weekends)

Waikuku

Waitangi Weekend 1996 is the time to head for Waikuku Lodge, on the edge of the Haurangi Forest Park, South Wairarapa.

Starting about 5pm Friday 2 February and going through to Tuesday 6 February, Waikuku offers a wilderness experience and great company.

Full details were published in the last newsletter, if you missed them, phone Linda: 04 487 4820.

For Sale

Portable Electric Typewriter, SHARP Model PA3000; 44 Alphanumeric keys, 65 character memory (on current line), correction tape, print speed l0cps, 10 or 12 print pitch. $165

A4 size Metal Filing Cabinets, one three draw and one single draw; $25 each ex Wellington.

These items are surplus to FREE BEACH GROUP requirements, reasonable offers considered.

The Legal Status of Public Nudity in New Zealand

A Recent High Court Decision and its Implications

In the July-August 1995 FREE BEACH News, I commented on a recent District Court case where Nobilangelo Ceramalus was convicted of disorderly behaviour for walking naked down his Street carrying his clothes in a bag. Mr Ceramalus's appeal to the High Court was heard in Auckland on 17-19 October 1995. The appeal was unsuccessful, so the conviction remains.

Following the newspaper report of the case, the Free Beach Group immediately sought a copy of the High Court decision, which was granted by Justice Morris. The issue for us is to examine the judgement and consider what implications, if any, it has for us now. For example, how does this High Court decision affect the 1991 decision when Mr Ceramalus was found not guilty of offensive behaviour for sunbathing nude at Fitzpatrick Bay? More directly, has our naked tranquillity at our free beaches been thrown into jeopardy by this latest incident?

We would probably like simple, clear-cut answers. The legal reality, though, is more complex. We need to analyse the facts of law, and then consider their implications.

Facts of Law
In making his judgement in the High Court on 27 October, Justice Morris twice emphasised an extremely important principle:

"As has been repeatedly stressed, the judgement of the conduct in question is in every case a matter of degree depending upon the relevant time, place and circumstances" (page 6)

"...his actions must be judged having regard to the existing circumstances and the reactions which his actions arouse in the particular place and at the particular time with which the Court is concerned" (page 7).

This principle sets the boundaries of the judge's task. In hearing Mr Ceramalus's appeal, the High Court was not in the least bit concerned with the philosophy or theology of the human body or any part of, nor even of nudity in general. The judge was required to make a judgement in relation to "the relevant time, place and circumstances" of a particular incident.

We need to understand quite clearly at the outset that there is a world of difference in law between the substantive or relevant issues that lead to a legal decision, and the secondary or incidental issues that may have little or even no relevance to that decision (no matter how important these latter considerations may be in the mind of the legally-untrained person).

The sole question before the High Court was the following:

in the particular case brought for judgement, was the District Court judge wrong in reaching the conclusion that the sanctions of the criminal law should be brought into effect?

If the High Court was to determine that the answer to this sole question was "no", then the appeal would not be successful; if the answer was "yes", Mr Ceramalus's appeal would have been successful.

In making his judgement, Justice Morris referred to a 1967 Court of Appeal case (Melser v. Police) that discussed what had to be proved to justify a conviction on a charge of disorderly behaviour. Two tests are necessary. Firstly, was the action "of a character which is likely to cause annoyance to others who are present" or "sufficiently ill-mannered, or in bad taste, to meet with the disapproval of well-conducted and reasonable men and women"? Secondly, did the action "tend to annoy or insult such persons... sufficiently deeply or seriously to warrant the interference of the criminal law"?

In other words, a conviction of disorderly behaviour must be based on two things: the fact of annoyance (were reasonable people annoyed?) and the degree of annoyance (was it serious enough for criminal law to intervene?).

In determining the fact of annoyance, Justice Morris said that nothing had been put before him to reject the findings of Judge Cadenhead in the District Court. Some of Mr Ceramalus's neighbours were annoyed at his naked walk. Judge Cadenhead accepted their evidence and concluded "that reasonable right-thinking persons had been annoyed by what they had observed".

As to the degree of annoyance, a test is used to determine whether criminal law should apply. The test was applied in the High Court in 1991 by Justice Tompkins. When Mr Ceramalus was convicted for sunbathing nude at Fitzpatrick Bay, Justice Tompkins found on that occasion that Mr Ceramalus's conduct was not "such as would arouse feelings of anger, disgust or outrage in the average reasonable person". Accordingly, the interference of criminal law on that particular occasion was not justified.

In the present case, Judge Cadenhead concluded in the District Court that "right-thinking persons in the community... would have feelings of anger, resentment, disgust and outrage in seeing a naked adult male walking down a public street in daylight hours in full view of both adults and younger children". That was the view of at least three witnesses who gave evidence before Judge Cadenhead.

Continued next page...

In the High Court, Justice Morris stated that nothing before him indicated that the District Court Judge was wrong in his assessment. He agreed with Judge Cadenhead's decision to apply criminal law and stated that "certainly nothing has been put before me to suggest he is wrong in principle in so reaching that conclusion".

The High Court determined that in the particular case brought for judgement, the District Court Judge was not wrong in reaching the conclusion that the sanctions of the criminal law should be brought into effect. Accordingly, Mr Ceramalus's appeal was unsuccessful.

Implications

The issue for us is the legality of all our public nude activities: how legal is our nudity at the beach, on bush walks, at places like Waikuku lodge or Ngatuhoa, and even in our own backyard if our neighbours can see us? I went to a stage production this week Where a female dancer performed completely nude for ten full minutes: what about that type of nudity in society, and any other instances of public nudity?

General Implications

There will never be a general positive law that says we are legally able to go nude whenever and wherever we want. Quite simply, the law does not work that way. It is not the purpose of law to work like that. Similarly, there will never be a general law that says every instance of public nudity is illegal. For example, a shipwrecked mariner who is washed up naked on the shore will never be convicted, nor will people in situations like the four tourists in South Africa recently who were stripped, raped and robbed of all their belongings, and who then had no choice but to walk completely naked to the nearest place for help.

It should be patently clear by now that every instance of public nudity is to be judged on its merits according to the relevant circumstances of the particular incident. According to those circumstances, the Courts in New Zealand will try to determine whether reasonable people were annoyed to the point of anger, resentment, disgust and outrage.

In other words, every incident of public nudity in New Zealand is not a test of the boundaries or parameters of the law itself: those boundaries are very clear and simple. Rather, every incident of public nudity is a test of the attitude of "reasonable" people. It is not the law that we need to expand: what we need to expand is the public's attitude, so that public nudity becomes more and more acceptable to "reasonable" people.

It can't happen over night. It certainly can't happen if we behave imprudently. It requires a whole programme of education based on prudent strategies. The nudist information day that was initially planned to be held in Auckland on 10 December 1995, with widespread media involvement, is an excellent example of the right type of direction.

Particular Implications

On the question of our nudity at our Free Beaches, I would refer readers to the article written by yours truly in the July - August 1995 FREE BEACH News titled Has the Law Really Changed? The article explains why there is no conflict between Mr Ceramalus's successful appeal in 1991 and his conviction in 1995. The Judges in both cases used the same legal principle. They came to different conclusions on the basis of the difference in circumstances between a well known nudist beach and a public street. In the High Court on 27 October 1995, Justice Morris merely determined that the District Court conviction was not wrong.

Justice Morris did, however, sound a note of caution that we need to be aware of. Referring to Mr Ceramalus's successful appeal in 1991, Justice Morris stated: "Contrary to the appellant's thinking, it does not follow he can now lie naked on Fitzpatrick Bay Beach with total immunity from the law. More specifically it certainly does not follow the decision reached on the particular facts of that case justifies him in walking naked where he chooses". Further on in his decision, having quoted in Latin "When in Rome do as the Romans do", the Judge said "Applied to this case it simply means 'When in Auckland suburbia, live in a suburban style. If elsewhere e.g. a beach, live as they live on that beach but take care". The underlining was Justice Morris's own addition.

What are we to make of that? He says that we can "live as they live on that beach" - so let us do it. We can continue to go naked on our free beaches. He also tells us to take care - may we do that too. When naked on the beach, may we observe due propriety and behaviour, or whatever one wants to call it, and we will be safe from the intervention of criminal law. However, should our behaviour be such that it causes serious disturbances or annoyance to others on the beach, then clearly we will not be totally immune from the law. Except for cases of misbehaviour on our part, in light of the 1991 High Court decision it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for particular circumstances to arise where our nudity could be legally offensive or disorderly at free beaches where nude sunbathing is not uncommon".

Continued next page...

Personally, having some knowledge of Justice Morris from another case, I suspect that Justice Morris himself may have been annoyed on hearing of Mr Ceramalus's naked walk down the street and wanted to frighten him. Above all, he clearly did not want Mr Ceramalus to think that he could walk around anywhere in the nude on the basis of his successful appeal in 1991.

Of course, there is absolutely no problem at all with our nudity at Ngatuhoa. We hire it from people who allow us to go nude in the area, which is locked to outsiders. Nudity at Waikuku lodge is virtually in the same category as at Ngatuhoa. Furthermore, we can be pretty sure that anyone else who may happen to be a passer-by so far out in the bush would respect the fact that nudists would enjoy such places. "Reasonable people" exercise common sense.

It is interesting to note that a complaint was made to the Police about our presence at Rangi Woods, where several clothed families with children were in the same open area as ourselves. The Police declined to pursue the matter and even telephoned us to advise that they were not pursuing it. Clearly the Police make a judgement on the complaints that are made to them by the public.

As for nudity on our own property, the legal situation depends on the attitude of any neighbours who can see us. If we are in doubt, why not go and chat with them to find out and even influence, if necessary? It is a good opportunity to establish our credentials as bona fide nudists, thereby beginning that all-important education literally at home.

Conclusions

From the above, the following major conclusions may be drawn.

Firstly, public nudity in New Zealand is not legal. It has never been legal. There are, however, circumstances where public nudity is not illegal. Importantly for us, this includes public beaches "where nude sunbathing is not uncommon".

Secondly, the law itself is neutral on the whole issue of public nudity. The actual legality or illegality of public nudity depends on the attitude of the public in relation to the particular circumstances of each incident of public nudity. This is a very important point. It means that the legal status of public nudity is subjective. This in turn means that the legal status of public nudity can be fickle: it changes in accordance with the public attitude.

Now, a changing legal position has the potential to be beneficial for us nudists, but it also has the potential to be detrimental. At present, the non-illegality of our nudity on free beaches is in our favour. Therefore, the message is simple: do not rock this fickle boat. Above all, may we avoid any action that would lead to further court cases.

We are much, much more fortunate than generations and generations of people who have lived before us and who could only dream of the type of relative nudist freedom that we now enjoy. Let us keep things in their historical perspective. An excellent book on the history of nudism titled "As Nature Intended - A Pictorial History of The Nudists" describes on pages 4 and 5 how things were at the turn of the century:

"In 1900 women always wore corsets and stockings with a bathing dress. On English beaches, bathing machines, caravans drawn by horses, took ladies out to sea so they could immerse themselves in all their apparel, unobserved by the peeping Toms. Although there were daring experiments with fashion during the 1880's and 1890's, it was not until 1909 that women's one-piece costumes ousted the obligatory long drawers, full skirts and sleeves. The following year Broadstairs reacted, passing a bye-law which insisted that 'for the preservation of decency and order, every person above the age of ten years shall wear a suitable costume from the neck to the knees'. Men were expected to cover their chests until the 1930's. As late as 1927 a man was arrested in Hyde Park for sunbathing in shorts. He was told by the magistrate, 'I am going to hold, rightly or wrongly, that to expose the upper part of your body is indecent".

In the 1990s we nudists can now lament the ignorance and 'dark ages' of a relatively recent time that some of our grandparents and parents lived in.

The way forward is to overcome the ignorance of the 'dark ages'. The way forward Is through education. Through education we can alter the attitude of the "average right-thinking person". Only then will there be a reduction in the fact and degree of annoyance at nudity in public, with consequent reductions in interventions of the criminal law.

May we make no mistake about it: the criminal law will always exist. The issue for us is to reduce the instances and circumstances where the intervention of criminal law is brought into effect.

Finally, therefore, may we be prudent. May we avoid court cases. May we be relatively content that public nudity on beaches "where nude sunbathing is not uncommon" is not illegal.

Frank Peek

Appeal

At a recent High Court decision, Nobilangelo Ceramalus lost his appeal to over turn a conviction for being naked in a Street near his home. Nobilangelo believes that this conviction has grave implications for the nudist movement, and has sought leave of the High Court to go the Court of Appeal.

This is a very expensive undertaking. Nobilangelo has requested, and would be grateful for any donations towards the costs of his appeal.

Anyone who would like to assist Nobilangelo should send their donations direct to:

Nobilangelo Ceramalus
3 Caram Place
North Shore City
AUCKLAND 10
or phone: 09 483 5428

Cultural Conservation

Cultural Conservation is all about maintaining the custom, manners and behaviour of our forbears. It is frightfully important.

The early inhabitants of New Zealand used to bathe in the sea, rivers and lakes, and in fact were quite proficient swimmers. Of course they had no costumes. The whole scenario is described in the tale of Hinemoa: she even took gourds to provide extra buoyancy on a long swim. The next wave of immigrants adopted these customs (there are written records). It was some years later that the bathing costume immigrated. For reasons probably socio-economic, it gradually gained popularity.

"Is the bathing costume politically correct?"

Gordon Lind Walker

Members' Directory

Members who had renewed their subscriptions by 30 November, and who had declared that they wished to be included in the Members Directory will receive their copy with this newsletter.

It is important that you use discretion when phoning anyone who has an asterisk (*) beside their phone number.

Ocean Beach Days

Hawkes Bay members are heading to Ocean Beach from Saturday 30 December to Tuesday 2 January, and invite other members to join them. Overnight camping is encourage, and Murray will be there with his barbecue and 4WD to help with transport of your gear down to the beach.

Directions: From Havelock North, go 20Km behind Te Mata Peak towards Waimarama. At the turn-off, continue straight ahead into Ocean Beach Rd. Drive or walk north 600m to the first (dry) stream outlet. Camping is permitted. Supplies at Waimarama or Havelock North.

For more details, call Butch: 06 835 7146.

Down on "The Farm"

At the Palmerston North Rally two years ago, I was impressed by the open invitation extended by the Wanganui Sun Club to visit their grounds.

So when I visited Wanganui recently, I phoned Liz (the President), who escorted me to the club. A tree at the gate has three red stripes on it, and the name on the gate says "The Farm".

I stayed one night alone in the club house as night watchman. The club house has a fully equipped kitchen, fridge space, showers and washing machine. There is also a pot belly wood burner to keep warm on cool nights.

There is a miniten court and a stream flows through the sheltered valley of the grounds. I met a few members and we went for a stroll along the stream. They showed an interest in Free Beach Group activities. There is no sign of fences and there is freedom to wander and enjoyed the quiet tranquillity. The only animals I saw were two ducks and a few sheep.

Liz extended an invitation to FBG members to visit at any time, phone 06 344 5547.

Glenn Smith

Breaker Bay Cleanup

Members of the FREE BEACH GROUP turned up as planned on Sunday 3 December for the beach cleanup. Rotary members who had organised the event failed to appear, so all the rubbish was piled up and burned. The smoke caused a small problem for small planes landing at the airport, and the Fire Brigade arrived to check up, the rubbish was burnt, and the beach has had its Spring Clean.

FREE BEACH News

This Newsletter is intended to be an open forum and has been compiled from information supplied by members. If you have any topics of interest to share with others, or if you have any ideas or concerns, now is your opportunity to express them. All material contained in this Newsletter is Copyright. Editors wishing to reprint any item in part or whole are invited to contact the Editor for permission, and any conditions which may apply.

Contributions/correspondence may be sent direct to the Editor,

John Groombridge, PO Box 30-099, LOWER HUTT