International Law

Dance, dance, dance

From the CP wire (here at the Globe and Mail):

The definition of “indecent” was debated in Provincial Court yesterday as the trial of a man accused of dancing naked on his lawn concluded in Moncton.

Peter William Bulman is accused of exposing himself to a woman and her young daughter on Sept. 10, 2006. The woman testified last month that she came out of her apartment building and saw Mr. Bulman with a beer in his hand, his pants around his ankles, dancing in circles on his front lawn.

The woman said Mr. Bulman took no notice of her or her daughter, but he continued to expose his buttocks and genitals for several minutes as he danced in the sun.

Mr. Bulman admitted to being on his front lawn and drinking as many as nine beers that afternoon.

But he denied dancing or dropping his pants.

He claims the woman had a grudge against him and made up the story.

Defence lawyer Bernadette Richard said that even if the judge decides Mr. Bulman exposed himself, there was nothing indecent about his actions.

“It was a person doing a little dance and maybe his pants fell,” she said.

“Whatever it was, it certainly wasn’t indecent, according to the law.”

Crown prosecutor Stephen Holt disagreed.

“A man goes out on his front lawn, drops his pants to his ankles, exposing his penis and buttocks and swings around on his front lawn to music with a beer in his hands,” Mr. Holt said.

He argued that such an action isn’t acceptable according to the community’s standards, especially when it occurs in a residential area with many families around.

Ms. Richard argued that the Crown didn’t prove that Mr. Bulman exposed himself to a person under 14 “for a sexual purpose,” noting that even the mother testified that he took no notice of her or her daughter.

“There was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in that act,” she said.

How do you dance with your pants around your ankles? Was he doing the bunny hop?

Full post as published by Criminal Review on February 13, 2008 (boomark / email).