|
Free
Beach Group Inc Submission to Kapiti Coast District Council Nov 1999
Introductory
Comment:
We
would like to make two important points:
(a)
Through the Summary Offenses Act the law is already sufficient to
deal with any offensive or disorderly behaviour, and therefore a
bylaw is unnecessary for this purpose;
(b)
The Police recognise that the general body of law does not regard
nude bathing as illegal in itself.
Clause
16.1 Clothing optional areas:
The
Free Beach Group Inc has no objection in principle to the Council
advising beach-goers that nude bathers often use certain parts of a
beach.
If
it is Council intention to use Clause 16.1 to advise beach-goers that
nude bathers often use certain parts of the beach, we believe the
clause should be amended so that it does not define any part of a
beach as clothes optional. It would be sufficient for the Council to
resolve to erect advisory signs that "nude bathers may be found
beyond this point" or some similar wording eg "nude bathers
frequent the beach beyond this point".
However,
we are concerned that such signs may act to attract undesirable
elements to the area, and that this element could abuse the
situation.
The
Free Beach Group Inc does not support any proposal to define parts of
a beach as "clothing optional" if that designation implies
that other areas may not be used for nude bathing. General law has
declared in the case of Ceramalus v Police (High Court Auckland AP
No. 76/91, Judgement July 5, 1991, Tompkins J.) that a person who is
merely naked on the beach does not render him or her liable.
New
Zealand has a long coastline, and New Zealand law recognises that it
would be unreasonable to impose restrictions on legitimate,
inoffensive nude bathing.
Clause
16.2
If
it is Council intention to use Clause 16.1 to merely advise
beach-goers that nude bathers often use certain parts of the beach,
and in view of the matters refered to above (Clause 16.1), 16.2
becomes superfluous and should be deleted.
Clause
16.5 Offensive behaviour:
The
Free Beach Group Inc believes that Clause 16.5 should be amended by
deleting the word "indecent" and substitute the word
"offensive" to conform with Section 4 (offensive behaviour)
of the Summary Offences Act.
We
believe that Clause 16.5 is more than sufficient to cover all
situations and makes 16.2 superfluous and should be deleted.
Supporting
documents:
1.. Legal Opinion for the Free Beach Group Inc re North Shore City
Council Consolidated Bylaw, By Barry Wilson MA (Cantab), LLB (NZ),
Barrister.
2.. Offensive Behaviour - Naked Sunbathing On
Beach, Extract from NZ
Police magazine, Ten-one, Law notes, 28 February 1992, page 10.
Free Beach Group Inc web site:
http://www.nznaturally.org.nz/FreeBeach/
Return to beginning of Legal Notes
Protect it or Lose It
Legal Opinion on
the North Shore City Council Bylaw
Law Notes extract
from police magazine Ten-one
|