Graham Thomas Rowe, 61, has had a indecency conviction, for taking bikini snaps at Kaiteriteri Beach, quashed by the Supreme Court.

Photographs of teenage girls in bikinis in a public place would not be indecent and if they did not want to be photographed they should not wear it, a lawyer has told the Supreme Court.

Steven Zindel is acting for Graham Thomas Rowe, 61, who took five pictures of three teenage girls on Kaiteriteri beach without them knowing in January 16. He was found guilty at trial of doing an indecent act with intent to insult.

"Technology like iPhone means you could be snapped by anybody. If they don't want to be snapped they should not wear that on the beach," he told the Supreme Court justices on Tuesday.

Zindel said if someone took photographs of what may be seen in public that should not be an offence.

READ MORE:

* Bikini pic snapper guilty

* Community work for snapping indecent pic

* Indecent photo appeal thrown out

Rowe had maintained at trial that he had been taking pictures for a South Island travel guide and believed he was allowed to take photos in a public place.

He was found guilty at Nelson District Court in January 2017, and was later sentenced to 120 hours' community work and six months' supervision.

The Court of Appeal found the jury had enough evidence to arrive at a guilty verdict.

"It is clear, however, from the fact that Mr Rowe used his zoom lens to focus on the three girls that they were the subject of his attention," Justice Graham Lang said.

To the Supreme Court, Zindel said such images were not capable of being indecent - with people choosing to wear what they want to wear and no attempt to take the photo furtively.

"If they chose to wear bikinis and stand up and be photographed by their parents it takes away some of the privacy sting," he said.

He accepted that there might be instances where the pictures should not be used, like those of a victim after a car crash.

He said police had examined Rowe's computer which had about 8000 images. About a quarter had girls in them and the rest were bridges and roads and other places Rowe had been.

There was no apparent possession of child porn, or file sharing and Rowe disclaimed any sexual motive and anything malicious was intended.

Zindel said they were arguing that what was seen ordinarily in public without the subject matter being exploited should be able to be viewed or photographed.

He said Rowe did have a previous conviction from 2005 for offensive behaviour after taking photos of school kids on their way to school.

Crown lawyer Brendan Horsley said there were a combination of factors that made it indecent like using the zoom lens, the breach of privacy, had no consent to take the images and he had no alternative legitimate interest in filming.

He said he could not say that anyone who took a photo of scantily clad girls in bikinis should be charged but in some circumstances a jury should decide.

Horsley said in Rowe's case there was sufficient evidence to give rise to concern and agreed they should definitely avoid filming surrepitiously.

He said what was indecent changed with community morals. Twenty years ago saying bugger on television was indecent but now no one would blink an eye.

Horsley said the issue of the privacy of children also had to be considered. There was a difference between a 25-year-old woman taking the images and a 60-year-old man taking them, he said.

The court has reserved its decision.