NU­DITY CASE

The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney) - - NEWS -

IT has been hotly de­bated whether po­lice should have laid charges against the Can­ter­bury Bull­dogs play­ers who were pho­tographed nude in a city pub on Mad Mon­day. Here’s why there is a case. Play­ers Adam El­liott and Asipeli Fine were both charged with wil­ful and ob­scene ex­po­sure over the in­ci­dent at the Har­bourview Ho­tel in The Rocks.

Those ar­gu­ing against po­lice charg­ing the play­ers say it is un­fair be­cause, while they were nude, they were in a pri­vately hired room and not mix­ing with the pub­lic.

But a close read­ing of the word­ing of the leg­is­la­tion shows why po­lice be­lieve they have a case.

In short, a pub is a pub­lic place, and even if it was pri­vately rented, po­lice al­lege the play­ers were still vis­i­ble to the pub­lic out­side — hence the pho­tos. This does not sug­gest El­liott and Fine are guilty, only that there was jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for po­lice to charge them.

Get your pro­trac­tors out, be­cause Snitch sus­pects there will be an ar­gu­ment down to the mil­lime­tre about how much of the pub’s in­te­rior can be seen from the out­side. Both are due to face court on Oc­to­ber 24.

Bi­lal Haouchar.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.