ex Det CONSTABLE complains about nude on plinth

An ex det CONSTABLE now Criminologist, expert of on Child protection, TV adviser and also with TV appearances made a complaint about the appearance of a nude man on the plinth citing common law. When the local bobbies did not take action against the nude man he made a complaint to the Met. A a result he got a number of media interviews - was this all a publicity stint by him one must ask?
This from Lady Godiva’s blog re the plinth (Lady Godiva will be on the Plinth 5-6am on 30 September)

Here’s a letter sent to us from the police, along with some ‘official’ bumph on the legality of nudity:

“4Th Plinth - Public Nudity - Incident 12 August 2009

I have seen your report concerning the above incident and am concerned that there continues to be confusion about the legal position concerning public nudity.

I have prepared a separate document highlighting the legal position specifically looking at two pieces of current legislation:

• Common Law - Outraging Public Decency
• Section 66 Sexual Offences Act 2003

Any offence under Common Law must be of a lewd, obscene or disgusting nature. It has been held (by the courts) that the nakedness usually must be accompanied by either masturbation or sexual intercourse.

Section 66 replaces ‘Indecent Exposure with Intent to Insult a Female’ under the Vagrancy Act 1824. To commit an offence under S66 then two elements need to be present - the exposure of sexual organs and, the Intent to cause alarm or distress.

Unless your plinthers intend to cause alarm or distress or their behaviour is accompanied by other overt sexual actions, then they do not commit an offence.

This is a live Art exhibition and you cover this in your briefings with the plinthers. Without some sexual content attached to the nakedness then it is unlikely that any offences are committed. You only need to visit many of London’s art galleries to see numerous examples of the naked body.

However, it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis and my expectation is the officers use the law guide as a starting point rather than an assumption that the activity is unlawful and must be curtailed at the outset.

There have been other incidents of public nakedness within London - naked bike rides and a naked model in Selfridge’s window. The same issues were considered and we took the same view. The challenge is how best to deal with the person making the complaint and managing their expectations.

I have raised the issue internally to hopefully best inform our staff.”

‘Outraging public decency’ is one of very few common law offences remaining in the criminal justice system:

It is an offence to commit an act of a lewd, obscene and disgusting nature, which is capable of outraging public decency, in a public place where at least two members of the public could have witnessed it.

The different elements of the offence can be summarised as:
(a) The act committed must be of a lewd, obscene and disgusting nature (the meanings of these terms overlap); “Lewd” means ‘lustful or indecent’; “Obscene” - means ‘morally repugnant or depraved’ and “Disgusting” - means ‘repugnant or loathsome’.
(cool.gif The act must be capable of outraging public decency.
© More than one person must have been able to witness the act.
(d) Reasonable people must be able to venture out without the risk of outrage to minimum standards of decency, therefore the act must be in a place where there is a real possibility that members of the general public might witness it.

It has been held that, in order to outrage, exposure of the naked body (male or female) must grossly transgress accepted limits of decency and be likely to gravely offend a reasonable person, thus this offence will usually only be suitable if masturbation or sexual intercourse also occurs.

The following act is now obsolete:

Indecent exposure with intent to insult a female - Vagrancy Act 1824

This offence is now OBSOLETE as a consequence of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 now see section 66 of that Act.

Section 66 makes it an offence for a person intentionally to expose his genitals where he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. It is not necessary for the defendant’s genitals to have been seen by anyone or for anyone to have been alarmed or distressed. For example, if a person exposes his genitals to some passers-by, he may (depending on his state of mind) commit the offence regardless of whether they actually see his genitals or whether they have been alarmed or distressed by seeing them.
“Genitals” refers to male or female sexual organs.

Note
The offence would not apply to a naturist who intentionally exposes his genitals in the knowledge that they may be seen by others but without the intention to cause alarm or distress. Similarly, it would exclude an exhibitionist streaker at a sports occasion.
This offence can be committed by a male or female against a male or female.

This entry was posted on 03/09/2009 at 11:29 am and is filed under Naturism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

| Print