If someone’s offended, is that a criminal offence? 

That’s what a senior Police officer told the Grace for Life team when they went out in Hamilton to raise awareness about the dignity of unborn children. The team were displaying a sign that featured an image of an unborn baby at 20 weeks’ gestation. They were encouraging pregnant women to “choose life”, when they were threatened with arrest.

“if they feel that is offensive, that is an offence”

Grace for Life offers people a chance to chat. They engage in peaceful and respectful pro-life advocacy and invite passersby to consider the issue of abortion. They use signs to share their message and to help people understand what’s at stake, but people are free to engage with them or ignore them as they choose. This is a sincere expression of the Christian faith that motivates Grace for Life team members; they believe that all people have inherent dignity and equal worth in the eyes of a loving God, including those who are yet to be born.

On 21 February 2025, Grace for Life were in the Hamilton CBD when they were approached by a senior Police officer. The officer asked them to put away the sign away, saying Police had received complaints about the sign and “Any person who complains about anything to us, if they feel that is offensive, that is an offence.” The officer also stated a personal view that the sign was “offensive” and told the team that the Summary Offences Act 1981 “basically says if anyone feels offended by something, they can make a complaint” and police would arrest the offending party as a result.

The Grace for Life members put the sign away because they didn’t want to be arrested, even though they didn’t think they were doing anything wrong.

That’s when Ethos got involved.

The legal test for “offensive behaviour”

Grace for Life weren’t in one of the “safe areas” around an abortion services provider, where there are extra restrictions on what you can say. Rather, they were in an ordinary town square when the officer warned them that displaying the sign amounted to the crime of “offensive behaviour”.

This crime is spelled out in the Summary Offences Act 1981, which says it is an offence to behave “in an offensive … manner” in or within sight of a public place, or to address “any words to any person intending to … offend that person” in a public place.

However, merely causing offence is not enough to constitute “offensive behaviour”. The Supreme Court has made it clear that offensive behaviour “is not correctly interpreted as being ‘to offend’, even seriously,” and “The starting point that ‘offensive’ behaviour is behaviour which ‘offends’ is oversimplification”. Further, “Tolerance of the expressive behaviour of others is expected of other members of the public resorting to public space because of the value our society places on freedom of expression.”

In various cases, the Courts have said that:

• The offence caused must be to such an extent that it disturbs or disrupts public order;
• There must be an actual disturbance of public order and not a mere capacity to disturb;
• The behaviour must give rise to a “serious interference” with “the use by others of the public place” that goes “beyond what a society respectful of democratic values is reasonably expected to tolerate.” This involves an objective assessment of whether the behaviour was conduct that tended to provoke a disruption of order in a public space;
• “A contextual assessment of the relevant behaviour is required." This includes “consideration [of] the time, place and circumstances in which the behaviour occurred and its effect upon a reasonable member of the public exposed to it.”

Displaying this sign was not an offence

Grace for Life team members were wearing body cameras—something they’ve found to be a necessary and effective protection against threats of violence and false accusations in the past—and the footage shed light on what had taken place.

We wrote to Police pointing out that the officer involved got it wrong. Grace for Life’s interactions with the public had been calm and respectful, and there was no disruption of public order and no “serious interference” with others’ use of a public place. Even if others had been offended by the sign, that is not enough to constitute a crime.

Police acknowledged the officer got it wrong and apologised

Rather than going straight to a formal course of action, we invited Police to find a good-faith resolution.

They acknowledged that their officer got it wrong and apologised, saying, “Police accepts that the interpretation by [the officer] about what constitutes offensive behaviour was incorrect. We apologise to [the Grace for Life team leader] for this error”. They also agreed to ensure that their officers understand the correct legal test for offensive behaviour.

This is a positive outcome and we appreciate Police’s willingness to acknowledge the error. It’s good for all of us when scrutiny ensures that fundamental rights are respected and the law is applied accurately. This promotes the rule of law—the principle that we are all equal before the law and that it is applied fairly and without favour to all.

Grace for Life will be heading back out to the streets, confidently displaying their sign and living out their beliefs.

‍