Police Called Upon to Drop Charges Against Nudist

On Monday 8 May 2006 the Maroochydore Magistrates Court at Maroochydore will attempt for the fifth time to hear charges against Mr Ken Wenzel arising out of the fact that he was bathing nude on Third Bay Beach Coolum on 27 July 2005. In the Council’s view, this matter represents “an abuse of police prosecutorial discretion and we call upon the police to drop the charges particularly as they had to withdraw the original charge and start again”.

Mr Cope, President of the QCCL says, “The Council takes the view that nude beaches should be permitted so long as they are in secluded areas and are known and clearly marked as nude beaches.  If necessary, the State Government or relevant local councils should take steps to designate nude beaches and to mark and publicize them appropriately.”

The charge against Mr Wenzel is in the Council’s view absurd:

• ·         The beach at Third Bay is known as nudist, even appearing in a nudist magazine.

• ·         Even on the police case, Mr Wenzel was sunbathing in an isolated area of the beach in which he could not be seen except from above, but from which he could see anyone who came towards him in sufficient time to put his clothes back on.  This is in fact what happened when the police approached him.

• ·         There were only a few other people on the beach most of whom were also nude. 

• ·         Mr Wenzel appears to have been one of over 100 people charged in crackdown nudity on beaches.  But as the Council understands it, police have chosen to charge people on Third Bay beach but not others.

Mr Cope says, “The police assert that they have received many complaints about nudists on beaches.  The way to deal with this is not to criminalise conduct which is doing no harm to anyone else but for the local authorities and the State Government to establish clearly designated nudist beaches.”

Mr Cope says, “This case also raises concerns about potential misuse of the charge of public nuisance which was introduced in the Summary Offences Act in 2005.”

Mr Cope says “Mr Wenzel was originally charged with being a public nuisance. Following argument by Mr Wenzel’s solicitor, the police had to withdraw that charge and were ordered by the Court to pay Mr Wenzel’s costs.  Despite this, he has now been recharged with wilful exposure.  In the Council’s view, in the circumstances, the police ought to have given up on they lost the first round.”