NOTES
De Minimis
Justice, though occasionally deaf, is, as Durand’s case’ may show,
rarely wholly blind. In an age of confrontation, the judiciary, like
the executive and legislative branches, may not unfairly be expected
to do its duty without flinching –
even when faced with the mono-
kini. In this task, Her Majesty’s justices in Quebec, drawing upon
their dual English and French legal heritages, may be best able to
achieve the requisite synthesis.’a
On the afternoon of July 7, 1964, it appears that one Demoiselle
Durand, twenty-one years of age, had, not without the instigation
of the director of the “Hawaii Beach” at Cannes or the influence of
the modest sum of thirty-five francs by him proferred, publicly
engaged in a game of ping-pong – with a difference: the young
lady was, in the words of the Court (let us be pedantic), ‘vtue d’un
simple cache-sexe, dit “monokini”, les seins restant enti~rement nus’,
attracting, not surprisingly, some fifty passers-by before a police
officer put an end to the proceedings. The Court of Appeal of Aix-
en-Provence had held 2 that the facts disclosed no offence, 3 since the
lady’s most privy parts were covered by a sufficiently opaque “mono-
kini”, and she had struck no posture and done no act that was las-
civious or obscene, and since the sight of the human body naked,
commonplace nowadays for purposes of ‘sport, health or aesthetics’,
could not outrage normal sensibilities, unless accompanied with a
view of more privy parts or lascivious or obscene postures or acts.4
Moral sensibilities were more delicate in the chillier climes of
Paris, where the less sunny view of the Cour de Cassation5 was that
lMilanini et Claudine Durand v. Min. publ., Cass., ch. crim., 22 ddc. 1965,
D.1966.144, Gaz. Pal. 1966.1.1,67 and note, J.C.P. 1966.2.14509; rev’g Aix, 5e
ch. corr., 20 janv. 1965, D.1965.417 and note, Gaz. Pal. 1965.1.208 and note, J.C.P.
1965.2.14143 bis; rev’g Trib. corr. Grasse, 23 sept. 1964, Gaz. Pal. 1965.1.95 and
note, J.C.P. 1965.2.13974, note A. Rieg.
laR. v. Brisebois, (1967), 14 McGill L.J. 109 (C.S.).
2 D.1965.417, Gaz. Pal. 1965.1.208, J.C.P. 1965.2.14143 bis.
3 Despite this intervening judgment of the Court of Appeal overruling its
holding in Durand’s case, the Tribunal correctionnel de Grasse some months later
unflinchingly condemned the antics of one Dlle. Claudine Bau as it had those
of Dlle. Claudine Durand: Bau v. Min. publ., Trib. corr. Grasse, 29 mai 1965,
J.C.P. 1965.2.14323 and note.
4 These words of the Court of Appeal appear to have been taken almost verbatim
from the judgment of the Cour de Riom, in Association des familles nombreuses v.
Minagerie Pezon, 16 nov. 1937, D.H. 1938.109.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 14
the facts in themselves amounted without more to an “exhibition
provocante de nature A offenser la pudeur publique et A blesser le
sentiment moral de ceux qui ont pu 6tre les t6moins”, in violation
of Art. 330 of the Penal Code,0 though, as no penalty was inflicted,
days in Cannes turned out to be more carefree than knights in
Covent Garden;7 Lord Brougham’s preference for the former was
wiser than he knew.
Scholars considering the likely impact of this decision upon the
common law should bear in mind that there may be a certain point
of accord between that system and the civil law: if in the former
system, the lower court is best able to find the facts, in the latter
it is also mieux capable de les apprgcier. If, however, it is to be
assumed that the judicial perspective is more accurate (if paradoxi-
cally less broad) from above, we must expect here, too, application
of the well-known if rather confining maxim: genitalia specientibus
non derobant.
Stephen A. SCOTT*
5D.1966.144, Gaz. Pal. 1966.1.167 and note, J.C.P. 1966.2.14509.
6 Art. 330:
Toute personne qui aura commis un outrage public A la pudeur sera punie
d’un emprisonnement de trois mois A deux ans, et une amende de 500 F. h 4,500 F.
Lorsque l’outrage public b la pudeur consistera en un acte contre nature
avec un individu du m~me sexe, la peine sera un emprisonnement de six mois A
trois ans et une amende de 1,000 F. h 15,000 F.
7Le Roy v. Sr. Charles Sidney, (1663), 1 Sid. 168, 82 E.R. 1036 (sub. -om.
Le Roy v. Sr. Charles Sidley). The text of the case, as reported by Siderfine,
reads in part as follows:
Sr. Ch. S. fuit indict al common ley pur several misdemeanors encounter le
peace del Roy & que fueront al grand scandal de Christianity, et le cause fuit
quia il monstre son nude corps in un balcony in Covent Garden al grand
multitude de people & la fist tiel choses & parle tiel parolls &c. (monstrant
ascun particulars de son misbehavior) & cel indictment fuit overtment lie
a luy en Court & fuit dit a luy per les justices que coment la ne fuit a cel
temps ascun Star-Chamber uncore ils voil fair luy de scaver que cest Court
est custs morum de touts les subjects le Roy, et est ore haut temps de
punnier tiels profane actions fait encounter tout modesty queux sont cy
frequent sicome nient solement Christianity.
The case was discussed briefly by Blackstone (sub. nom. Sir Charles Sedley’s case)
at Bk. IV, p. 65, n. 12 and also reported by Keble (sub. nom. Sir Charles Sydlyes
case) at 1 Keb. 620, 83 E.R. 1146, the text of that report being as follows:
He was fined 2000 mark, committed without bail for a week, and bound to
his good behavior for a year, on his confession of information against him,
for shewing himself naked in a balkony, and throwing down bottles (pist in)
vi & armis among the people in Covent Garden, contrh pacem, and to the
scandal of the Government.
Of the Bar of the Province of Quebec and the Faculty of Law, McGill Uni-
versity.
