Photos of women at park ruled ‘not offensive’
An amateur photographer has had his conviction for offensive behaviour quashed on appeal, eight months after he was noticed photographing women exercising in Hagley Park.
Errol Reginald Standeven, a 49-year-old technician, defended the charge at a hearing before Justices of the Peace in September, but was convicted and fined $600.
That decision was appealed and Christchurch District Court Judge Jane Farish has now directed that the conviction be quashed and there be no retrial.
Many of the 269 photographs found on Standeven’s camera when the police were called, showed women’s breast and buttock areas. Police prosecutor Sergeant Kathy Pomfrett told the defended hearing: “The sheer number of photographs of females’ bottoms and breasts are enough for us to continue with the prosecution.”
The police had no complaints from any of the women, who did not know that Standeven was photographing them from his car, but it had a complaint from a man who said he was “disgusted” when he saw what Standeven was doing.
However, the appeal succeeded because the JPs were misdirected about the law.
Judge Farish said Standeven was at the park to take photographs. He did not hide or disguise himself.
“The photographs show (in my opinion) some fairly poor photography and in no way could they be described as salacious or offensive,” she said.
“Some of the shots are cropped, some shots show the lower half of some females’ bodies but none of them would be described as indecent and they would not offend the Crimes Act for example in relation to the taking of intimate photos without consent.”
The JPs considered at the hearing whether a reasonable person would find Standeven’s conduct offensive.
However, the legal definition of offensive behaviour is not about the protection of individuals from upset, but with “the protection of the public from disorder calculated to interfere with the public’s normal activities”. Offensive and disorderly behaviour must be “capable of disrupting public order”.
Merely causing someone to feel offended is not “offensive” behaviour within the meaning of the Summary Offences Act.
Police said at the appeal hearing that there was no legitimate reason for Standeven to be taking photographs and that if members of the public whose photos were taken had known of his presence and what he was doing, they may have been likely to provoke a violent reaction.
Defence counsel Andrew McKenzie said that although individuals might be concerned about Standeven’s behaviour, it did not meet the “threshold test” in the Act. He said: “It is not behaviour which would disrupt public order and render people using the park no longer wanting to attend or run through the park or in a public area.”
Judge Farish said the male witness believed Standeven had been taking salacious or indecent photographs of women and young people using the park. It was the behaviour itself which needed to be found to be offensive, but there was nothing indecent in Standeven taking the photographs. He was not disguised or furtive and his actions were no different from many other people who use the park and take photographs. The only difference was that he was in his car.
His actions did nothing to disrupt public order.
However, Judge Farish said: “Having said that, his behaviour may be described by some people as being morally reprehensible and he would be cautious to involve himself in similar behaviour which could provoke members of the public to take umbrage as to the photos or the nature of the photos that he is actually taking.”
Category: News
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Connect
Connect with us via: