Hauraki Naturally
INSPIRING FREEDOM
Case Law
Case Law (or Common law) in New Zealand refers to the legal system that has evolved from the English common law tradition. It is characterized by the importance of judicial decisions and precedents, which help shape and interpret the law. In New Zealand, common law works alongside statutory law, and plays a crucial role in applying and developing legal principles. This system ensures flexibility and adaptability in addressing new legal issues as they arise.
This page lists well-known examples of case law involving people who have been arrested for being naked in public spaces. The cases are listed in chronological order so that you will be able to see how both societal and court attitudes to public nudity have evolved over time. A brief overview is given in each case, but if you wish to study each case in more depth you can download the original court judgements by clicking on the corresponding PDF file. They contain the Judge's discussion on how he reached his verdict.
Some of the case hearings refer to other precedents that, while not specifically about public nudity, nonetheless helped direct the Judges in reaching their decisions, such as what defines "offensive behaviour". These cases are listed below the ones on nudity and are also downloadable.
Finally, you will find an excellent thesis paper, PUBLIC NUDITY AND THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS, by Laura Lincoln, written in 2013 for her Law Degree at Victoria University. This is well worth a read.
We hope this resource proves useful for anyone who needs to defend public nudity charges in the future.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Some of the defendants in the cases listed have permanent name suppression. While we have taken every step to abide by those court orders, if you happen to recognize anyone and know their real name you are also bound by such court order and will be held liable if you breach it by disclosing that name to anyone.
POLICE v CERAMALUS, 1991
The case involves an appeal by Nobilangelo Charison Ceramalus against a conviction for offensive behavior under Section 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981. The incident occurred on December 12, 1990, at Fitzpatrick Bay, where the appellant, a nudist, walked and sunbathed naked near a group of schoolchildren and teachers during a school outing. The District Court had convicted him but discharged him without penalty, considering it a test case. A further charge of Indecent Exposure was dropped by police.
The High Court, presided over by Tompkins J, examined whether the appellant's behaviour was "offensive" in the legal sense. The court concluded that while the behaviour was inappropriate, insensitive, and in bad taste, it did not arouse the level of anger, disgust, or outrage required to justify criminal law intervention. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.
Nobilangelo Ceramalus
POLICE v CERAMALUS, 1995
This case involves an appeal by Ceramalus who was convicted and fined $200 under s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 for walking naked in a public street in Auckland, New Zealand. The appellant argued that his actions were not disorderly, did not cause annoyance, and were protected under the Bill of Rights Act.
Witnesses testified they were offended by his behaviour, particularly as it occurred in view of children. The District Court Judge found the appellant's actions met the legal definition of disorderly conduct, and the High Court upheld this decision, dismissing the appeal against both conviction and penalty. The appellant was also ordered to pay $2500 in costs, as the court deemed his appeal a matter of personal principle rather than legal merit.
R v CERAMALUS, 1996
The case R v Ceramalus [1996] NZCA 117 involves Nobilangelo Charison Ceramalus, who was convicted in the North Shore District Court for behaving in a disorderly manner under Section 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981.
On February 21, 1995, Mr. Ceramalus walked naked down a suburban street in Birkdale, which offended neighbors and led to complaints to the police. He argued that his actions were an exercise of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Human Rights Act 1993.
The District Court Judge found his behaviour disorderly, noting that nudity on a public road could arouse feelings of anger, disgust, and outrage in reasonable persons.
This decision was upheld by the High Court in 1995 (see previous section), which rejected his appeal, and later by the Court of Appeal, which declined special leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal determined that his actions were deliberate and intended to test the limits of the law, meeting the necessary mens rea for disorderly behaviour. The Court also ruled that the established test for disorderly conduct did not require modification in light of the Bill of Rights Act.
Ultimately, Mr. Ceramalus' appeal was dismissed, and costs of $3,500 were awarded to the Crown.
White v Police, 2006
The case of White v Police involves an appellant who was semi-naked while cycling near Springston, Christcurch, to express solidarity with unborn children and protest against the sex industry. The Court had to assess whether the appellant's behaviour constituted "offensive behaviour" as defined by the legal standards applicable.
The evidence presented included observations from three lay witnesses deemed reasonable by the Judge, who was satisfied that the appellant's behaviour met the threshold for criminal intervention. Despite the appellant's assertion that he did not intend to offend, the Court concluded that the intentional nature of his actions demonstrated awareness of how they might be perceived by others.
The seriousness of the case was further exacerbated by White choosing to turn up to court still semi-naked, resulting in a charge of contempt of court. The District Court Judge appropriately addressed the matter and noted that the appellant had apologized for his behaviour. Ultimately, White's appeal to quash both the charges of offensive behaviour and contempt of court was dismissed by the higher court, confirming the lower court’s decision that the behaviour was sufficiently serious and warranted criminal proceedings.
This judgement underscores the importance of societal standards of behaviour and the consequences of deliberately provocative actions in public settings. The decision was officially documented on 3 October 2006.
What is interesting about this case is that the court appeared to be unaware of the earnestness of White's protest ride and his involvement in issues of public consciousness. It appears that his downfall may have been mostly due to his choice to represent himself in court, rather than use a lawyer. Had he done so, a lawyer may have successfully argued his case under the Bill of Rights Act 1990 - the right to peaceful protest. Along with the two PDF files of the court's decision, you'll find another file, which is an Editorial published by "The Catholic Worker" subsequent to White's untimely death in 2007. It throws a lot of light on White's motivation.
POLICE v LOWE, 2010
This document presents the judgment of the High Court of New Zealand regarding the appeal of Mr. L against his conviction for offensive behaviour while cycling naked. Note that while the court document refers to Nick Lowe as Mr L. his name suppression has since been lifted and his full name has been widely reported in the media.
Case Background
-
Mr. L was convicted on August 20, 2009, for offensive behaviour under the Summary Offences Act after being seen cycling naked on World Nude Bike Day.
-
The complainant, Ms. Chamley, reported feeling "fairly disgusted" upon seeing Mr. L, prompting police intervention.
-
The Justices of the Peace found Mr. L guilty based on Ms. Chamley’s testimony and their interpretation of an Infringement Fine Manual.
Grounds for Appeal
-
Mr. L appealed on several grounds, including:
-
The Justices did not apply the correct evidentiary standard of "beyond reasonable doubt."
-
They failed to adequately justify their assessment of the complainant's evidence.
-
The Justices did not apply the correct legal test for determining offensive behaviour, focusing instead on the complainant's level of concern rather than whether the behaviour was capable of causing substantial offense.
-
Judgment Analysis
-
The appeal was treated as a re-hearing based on the original evidence.
-
The court considered whether the Justices applied the correct legal test for offensive behaviour, which requires behaviour to be capable of causing substantial offense to a reasonable person in the circumstances.
Nick Lowe
- The court referenced previous cases, particularly Brooker v Police, which established that offensive behaviour must be capable of wounding feelings or arousing real anger, resentment, disgust, or outrage.
Findings
-
The Justices' conclusion that Mr. L's behaviour was offensive was deemed incorrect. Their assessment of Ms. Chamley’s reaction as "quite concerned" indicated they applied a lower standard than required.
-
The court noted that Ms. Chamley’s testimony did not demonstrate substantial offence, as she expressed curiosity and mild disgust rather than outrage.
-
The context of Mr. L cycling on a quiet rural road, where exposure to his nudity was limited, further supported the conclusion that his behaviour did not meet the threshold for offensive behaviour.
Conclusion
-
The High Court allowed Mr. L's appeal, quashing his conviction and sentence. The judgment emphasized that while public nudity can be offensive in certain contexts, the specific circumstances of this case did not warrant a conviction.
-
The court acknowledged the evolving public attitudes towards nudity but refrained from broad guidelines on the acceptability of such behavior in public spaces.
This summary encapsulates the essential details and findings of the case, highlighting the legal principles involved and the court's reasoning in allowing the appeal.
POINTON v POLICE, 2012
The case Pointon v Police [2012] NZHC 3208 involved Andrew Lyall Pointon, a naturist, who was convicted of "offensive behaviour" under section 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 for running naked in a public park near Tauranga. The incident occurred on August 23, 2011, when he encountered a woman walking her dog. The woman felt discomforted and later filed a complaint.
The High Court, presided over by Heath J, reviewed the case after Pointon appealed his conviction. The court analyzed whether his behaviour disrupted public order or inhibited the complainant’s use of the park to a degree that justified criminal intervention. The court emphasized the need to balance Pointon’s right to freedom of expression with the public’s right to use public spaces without significant unease.
Ultimately, the High Court found that Pointon’s behaviour, while unwelcome, did not meet the threshold of "offensive behaviour" as it did not sufficiently inhibit the complainant’s use of the park. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Andrew Pointon
POINTON v POLICE, 2013
The second case Pointon v Police [2013] NZHC 2352 involved Andrew Lyle Pointon, a committed naturist, appealing his convictions for two charges of offensive behaviour. The charges stemmed from incidents on January 5, 2012, and March 30, 2012, where Mr. Pointon was seen gardening and mowing his lawn naked at his Tauranga property. Neighbours, including those with young children, complained about his behaviour, which they found offensive and inappropriate.
In the District Court, Mr. Pointon represented himself after dismissing his legal aid lawyer shortly before the trial. He was found guilty on both charges and fined $300 and $350, respectively. On appeal, Mr. Pointon argued that he was denied a fair trial due to his lack of legal representation, his physical condition (a cast on his right arm), and insufficient preparation time.
The High Court, presided over by Heath J, dismissed the appeal, concluding that Mr. Pointon had received a fair trial. The court found that he had prior experience with defended hearings, was familiar with the case materials, and had chosen to proceed without counsel. The judge also upheld the District Court's finding that Mr. Pointon's behaviour was offensive, particularly given the visibility of his actions to neighbours and children in the area.
The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.
POLICE v B, 2022
This is a particularly interesting case as it involves two charges: one of Offensive Behaviour, involving public nudity and the other of Common Assault. Of interest is the relative seriousness with which the court assigns each charge, which is not what we might expect.
Mr B faced two charges stemming from incidents on 24 October 2020. The court reviewed evidence presented over two hearing days, including witnesses’ testimonies and police records.
The first charge involved offensive behaviour related to Mr B's nudity on the beach, which witnesses found offensive but did not substantially interfere with the public's use of the area. The court considered the legal standards established in previous rulings, emphasizing that offensive behaviour must reach a level that inhibits or causes significant discomfort to others in a public space, beyond mere subjective offence.
Evidence showed Mr B was a committed naturist, often sunbathing and swimming naked near his property within an area he believed was permissible, especially under the police-mediated agreement. Witnesses, including Mr. Duncan and and his daughter Ms Duncan, observed Mr B's nudity; however, their reactions were subjective, and the court found that his conduct did not meet the threshold for offensive behaviour as defined by law, particularly given the context of his activities and the reasonable community standards.
Kaka Point Beach
The second charge involved an assault, where Mr B applied force to Mr. Duncan’s shoulder, allegedly causing him to stumble. The court accepted that Mr B's actions were deliberate and carried out when he was angry and leaving the beach area. The evidence suggested the force was more than trifling, and the circumstances indicated no provocation could justify such conduct. While Mr B doesn't deny that some physical contact occurred, he maintains that it was far less than what Mr Duncan and his daughter Shnece* alleged, and certainly not a push. However, the court found Mr B's version of events less convincing and determined that the assault, no matter how minor, was proven beyond reasonable doubt, recognizing that his frustration was evident but did not excuse the aggressive physical contact.
It should be noted that, under New Zealand law, a Common Assault can be
-
A simple push or a minor punch.
-
A threatening gesture, like a raised fist, when combined with words or the context.
-
Any unwelcome touching.
-
Threatening words that cause someone to reasonably fear an attack.
Overall, the court dismissed the offensive behaviour charge, concluding that Mr B's nudity, even in the presence of an 8-year old child, did not constitute an offence under the relevant legal standards, while the assault charge, determined as a "rapping" on the shoulder, was well supported by the evidence.
*NOTE: In parts of the Judge's decision document, Ms Shnece Duncan is erroneously referred to as Ms Kreger.
POLICE v DUNN*, 2025
This case revolves around the actions of Mr. Dunn, who was charged for running naked in a public area on two separate occasions in December 2024. The events unfolded in a relatively isolated track where both complainants encountered Mr. Dunn, leading to their immediate concerns for personal safety. The first incident occurred on December 10, 2024, at 10:30 am, during which the first complainant reported feeling frightened and vulnerable as Mr. Dunn approached her running at a fast pace. She perceived a threat, thinking he might be capable of assault due to his nakedness and the isolated environment.
The second incident took place on December 12, 2024, at 12:30 pm, where another female complainant also described feeling shocked and worried for her safety upon seeing Mr. Dunn running naked. Both women remarked on the absence of other people in the vicinity, contributing to their feelings of isolation and fear.
During the proceedings, the police opposed Mr. Dunn's application for dismissal of the charges based on the reactions of the complainants, pointing out that their fears illustrated a disruption to public order. The police also cited evidence that Mr. Dunn’s behaviour could reasonably be inferred to be a public nuisance, referencing legal precedents like *Morse v Police*, which emphasizes the importance of societal norms in determining acceptable public conduct.
Mr. Dunn's defense argued that he was not aware of the complainants nearby and that his actions were intended as a personal expression rather than a disruptive act. The court scrutinized the context in which these events occurred, considering factors such as the time of day, the location's popularity, and the reaction of the individuals involved.
After reviewing the evidence, the judge ruled that there was insufficient justification to attribute criminality to Mr. Dunn’s conduct as it lacked a clear intent to offend or disrupt public order on a significant scale. The judgment highlighted the need to balance rights to personal expression with public safety concerns, citing that for conduct to be deemed criminal, it must meaningfully hinder the public's use of shared spaces.
* In concluding the case, the court granted an order for permanent name suppression. Mr Dunn is not the defendant's real name
Daffodil Bay, Invercargill
The following cases have been used by the courts in defining certain terms relevant to cases of public nudity.
BROOKER
The Brooker v Police case is significant as it addresses the intersection of individual rights and societal order within New Zealand's legal framework. It helps clarify the legal definition of disorderly behaviour under the Summary Offences Act, while also illustrating the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in real-world contexts.
The case is particularly important for its exploration of how the right to freedom of expression must be balanced against the community's interest in maintaining public order. It serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar issues, guiding courts in assessing what constitutes disorderly conduct and ensuring that the rights of individuals are not unduly compromised by legal interpretations of societal norms. The case also reflects the evolving nature of public tolerance and expectations regarding behaviour in shared spaces (refer to pages 30-30).
HOPKINSON
This document is a legal judgment from the High Court of New Zealand regarding the case of Hopkinson v. New Zealand Police. It discusses the appeal brought by Mr. Hopkinson following his conviction for dishonouring the New Zealand flag. The hearing took place on May 18, 2004, and the judgment was delivered on July 23, 2004. Key issues include the interpretation of rights under specific sections of legislation and the context of the appellant's actions.
The outcome of Mr. Hopkinson's appeal was that he was convicted, and he was ordered to pay a fine of $600.
The appeal failed primarily because the District Court Judge was found to have correctly applied the relevant legal principles, and the arguments made by the appellant were not sufficient to establish that the Judge's decision was erroneous. The appellant's submission drew attention to the need for a rights-centered approach, but the court concluded that the limitations imposed did not unjustifiably breach the appellant's rights. The Judge's interpretation of the law and the findings relating to the facts of the case were upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This information is referenced on pages 6 and 11.
MORSE
This document pertains to the case of Valerie Morse v. The Police, where the Supreme Court of New Zealand allowed the appeal against Morse's conviction for offensive behaviour under the Summary Offences Act 1981. The court examined the nature of "offensive" and "disorderly" behaviour in public spaces, ultimately concluding that the determination of offensive behavior must consider whether public order is preserved. Morse had set fire to the New Zealand flag as a form of protest against military involvement, which she argued was a protected expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
The Supreme Court interpreted "offensive" behaviour broadly, emphasizing that it requires a considerable degree of offensiveness in its impact to warrant the application of criminal law. The court acknowledged that for behaviour to be considered offensive, it must be calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger, resentment, disgust, or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person. This interpretation aligns with earlier rulings in both Australia and New Zealand, whereby the reactions of those affected by the behaviour and the context—time, place, and circumstances—are significant in determining offensiveness (see pages 19-20).
PUBLIC NUDITY AND THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION:
BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS
Laura Mary Lincoln
This thesis paper, authored by Laura Mary Lincoln, presents an analysis of public nudity in the context of freedom of expression, as outlined in New Zealand's legal framework.
It seeks to address two primary questions: the determination of when public nudity qualifies as “expression” under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the conditions under which limiting this right might be reasonable. The paper critiques the existing framework, particularly referencing the Canadian case of Irwin Toy Ltd v Attorney-General (Quebec), while advocating for a purposive approach. It also discusses the modified Hansen sequence proposed by Professor Claudia Geiringer and examines real-life examples of public nudity from both naturists and protestors to illustrate the application of these legal principles.
