UK LAW REGARDING PUBLIC NAKEDNESS

Home | Events | About | Alienation | Archive | Propaganda T-Shirts | Human Racism | Contact

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK LAW.

Skin Freedom Events stem from the UK because that is where Vincent Bethell is based.

This page is therefore about UK law, but the issue of Skin Freedom is applicable to everybody worldwide.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

David McCahon from the Solicitor’s Department of New Scotland Yard writes regarding nakedness:

Arrests relating to a common law Breach Of Peace would be “unlikely” and “difficult to justify.”

David McCahon wrote two letters to The Freedom To Be Yourself explaining how the common law Breach Of The Peace would be “difficult to justify” and “unlikely” regarding public nakedness. To see these letters in a new window click: Letter A - Letter B

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOT GUILTY VERDICTS:

Laws regarding public nakedness are a grey area. Many commentators say public nakedness is not illegal. Various GENERAL PURPOSE LAWS unrelated to public nakedness can be applied. Subsequent to the above mentioned letters from New Scotland Yard, there have been various high profile courts cases where not guilty verdicts were achieved and convictions overturned.

A unanimous not guilty verdict was given by a jury at Southwark Crown Court on Jan 10th 2001. This unanimous verdict was regarding Vincent Bethell being arrested on various occasions and charged with Disorderly Behaviour (in relation to Section 5 of the Public Order Act). All charges of Disorderly Behaviour were converted into a charge of CAUSING A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REFUSING TO WEAR CLOTHES, which resulted in a Southwark Crown Court trial. Judge George Bathurst-Norman decreed public nakedness was not a crime in these circumstances. The circumstances were various occasions of nakedness around central London, and one occasion in Bristol, on public streets and transport.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE VARIOUS LAWS:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

■ Breach of Peace:

BOP is not applicable regarding mere nakedness due to advice from The Solicitor's Department of New Scotland Yard. David McCahon for The Solicitor to the Commissioner writes: “Given that you actions are non-violent and non-destructive I agree that an arrest for breach of the peace would be difficult to justify.” David also writes: “It is on the basis that your behaviour is non-violent and non-destructive that I comment that an arrest for breach of the peace would be unlikely in the circumstances you describe.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

■ Public Order Act (Section 5):

Section 5 of the Public Order Act relates to “threatening, abusive, insulting, or disorderly behaviour to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.” This law is the most commonly applied regarding public nakedness. The police say nakedness is “disorderly”. There have been two not guilty verdicts in relation to court cases were police have applied this law. Two convictions have also been overturned after appeal (these successful appeals were for Russell Higgs and Ash Eldritch). The good thing about this law is that the police are legally obliged to warn you to stop your allegedly disorderly behaviour before they can legally arrest you, therefore if you want to avoid arrest you simply put on your clothes when the police warn you to stop your disorderly behaviour. The warning aspect of this law can also be a bad thing because the police may have no intention or justification for arresting you, they may warn you realising you are likely to comply with the warning. The Section 5 warning is not an official type caution, the warning is simply the the police officer telling you to stop your disorderly behaviour. If you reclothe when warned there is no problem. The warning is valid for approximately 4 hours and after 4 hours the officer needs to give a new warning. When police give you this Section 5 warning you can call their bluff if you think you are innocent but there is a strong possibility they may arrest you. Considering the not guilty verdicts and successful appeals regarding this law there is a chance police may no longer apply this law to naked people or if they do apply this law there is a good chance of being found not guilty.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

■ Indecent Exposure:

This is a sexual offence. Formerly this offence was only applicable to men. The sexual element of this law was toughened up in the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, therefore offenders now must now sign the Sexual Offenders Register if convicted. The offence is regarding intentional exposure of the genitals to cause alarm and distress. Sexual arousal in the person doing the exposing is not necessary. The law is primarily designed to criminalize flashers who expose themselves to women. Before 2003 this law was rarely applied to naked protesters. Since the 2003 Sexual Offences Act it is highly unlikely Skin Freedom Activists would be charged with this law. It would be cruel and usual to apply this law to someone campaigning for nakedness rights. Criminalizing someone as a sex offender when they are simply protesting naked would be highly bizarre. During the consultation process regarding the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Lords and Ministers assured naturists this law was not intended to apply to naturists or streakers.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

■ Outraging Public Decency:

This has never been applied to Skin Freedom Activists although theoretically it could be applied, however it is a very serious offence usually requiring highly shocking or obscene behaviour. This law is commonly applied to people who are caught having sexual intercourse in public but it does not necessarily apply to sexual behaviour. The chances of this law being applied to public nakedness are very slim.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

■ Causing a Public Nuisance:

This law is rarely applied regarding public nakedness. On the one occasion when it was a applied, a unanimous not guilty verdict resulted. Previous experience tells us that this law applies to multiple instances of public nakedness therefore it is only applicable to repeat offenders who persistently take their clothes off (or refuse to wear clothes) in public, and due to the unanimous not guilty verdict it is probably no longer applicable. Members of the jury gave the verdict that various occasions of nakedness in public do not cause a nuisance.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

■ Terrorism Laws:

Laws regarding terrorism are generally loosely worded. Terror laws can be applied to almost anyone if the police choose to. Terrorism laws are often used to arrest and temporarily detain civil-rights protesters but a court case is unlikely to result. Terrorism laws can be used (or abused?) by police to stop a protest if police don’t want the protest to go ahead. In practice terrorism laws have never been used against naked rights protesters in relation to this campaign, but this could be because Skin Freedom Events have not been organised since 9/11.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER

Under no circumstances does this web-site advocate breaking any law. If you are unsure about whether or not your public nakedness is legal contact a solicitor or the police. The information on this page is complied by me, Vincent Bethell, and I possess no official legal qualifications. The information on this site is not intended to encourage law-breaking. This page and web-site are designed to explain the situation regarding racist skin phobia. This page about NAKEDNESS LAW relates to UK law. Prejudice causes naked people to be unjustly persecuted. The purpose is to stop this persecution via legal methods, such as lawful protest.

If anyone wants to write a page about Nakedness-Laws in other countries please mail your input to:

mail@stop-racist-human-skin-phobia.org