Topless bathing, senseless laws

It would be stating the obvious to say that ordinary people have difficulties understanding the mechanics of the law and its interpretation by legal gurus. However, some basic shortfalls are so vividly obvious that even us normal folk can notice them. After all, one does not need a specialised medical opinion to conclude that a finger was cut when it bleeds.
A typical example occurred a few days ago, when a woman was conditionally discharged by our courts for sunbathing topless. She appealed the sentence on the grounds that there existed legal uncertainties that clouded the interpretation of the article under which she had been charged.

The court of appeal noted that article 338(q) of the Criminal Code states that whoever “exposes himself/herself naked or is indecently dressed” in public places will be guilty of breaching public order. And since the woman was accused of topless bathing, it was assumed that the woman was indecently dressed. Furthermore, the court noted that, in the absence of clear guidelines on what constitutes indecent dress, the matter had to be left to the subjective opinion of the judging body.
While steering away from focusing on this case, I will try to make some observation on the issue in general .
As a layman, I have no difficulty understanding that law originates with the goal of safeguard people’s rights, which also include living in a safe and morally clean environment according to popular customs at the time. However, when the initial grounds on which it was enacted change, cease to exist or fall into disuse, the law will be in need of an overhaul. In America they used to hang horse thieves, in times gone by when that particular crime was considered a capital offence. Today, a horse thief will probably get a light sentence. I also understand the prerogative given to our judges to use principles of natural justice and fair conduct to reach a judgment when common law is inadequate or inappropriate, or when the written law does not give a clear guideline.
My problem is with the procrastination of our parliamentarians to change or amend an ambiguous law, which ambiguity has been proved time and again in our courts of law.
I don’t know when article 338(q) of our Criminal Code was enacted, but it must have been a very long time ago as I remember our police chasing and booking bikini-clad women on the beach as far back as the 1960s. Although the same law still exists our police don’t go round looking for them anymore. They now look for topless sunbathers, and lap- and pole-dancers.
My personal opinion on whether or not topless sunbathing should be legal is not in the least important. The point I am trying to make is that our law makers should get their act together and amend and specify our decency code to reflect our moral standards today and repeal outdated articles.  
Charles J, Buttigieg
Mellieha