Recommendation 54 / UK Sexual Offences Bill

<body> <p><font color="#0000FF">[This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them.]</font></p> <font FACE="Times New Roman"> <h1><font color="#FF0000">Latest ...</font></h1> <h4>The Sexual Offences Bill received its first reading in the House of Lords in January and its second on the 13th Feb. Next will be the Committee Stage before the third reading in the Lords. The whole process is then repeated in the House of Commons. Amendments can be made at the Committee Stage - this is when your views as a Naturist should be made known by your MP on your behalf.</h4> <h3>Now is the time to <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/contactingmp.htm">CONTACT YOUR MP</a> by letter, email or <a href="http://www.faxyourmp.com/">FAX</a> (via email) to make him/her aware of your views that non-sexual nudity as a leisure pursuit must not be confused with sexual gratification in the context of the Sexual Offences Bill as, despite the apparent earlier reassurances (see below), if the current wording is not changed before the Bill becomes Law, naturism as we know it will become illegal in the UK. <a href="http://www.armage.demon.co.uk/nuff/campaigns/sex_offences_bill_2003/"><br> Click here</a> for reasoned comments and analysis by NUFF.</h3> <hr> <h1><font color="#FF0000">Last year we alerted you to ...</font></h1> <h1 align="center"><font color="#008000">A New Law that would badly affect Naturism in the United Kingdom</font></h1> <h3 align="center"><i>If you have ever enjoyed sunbathing or swimming without clothes this concerns <b>you</b>!<br> The British Government is changing the Law regarding "Indecent Exposure" and ...</i></h3> <h2 align="center"> <font color="#FF0000"> <u> THE NEW LAW COULD CRIMINALIZE MALE NATURISTS</u></font></h2> <h3 align="center">We asked you to Email your views to the Government by 1st March 2001</h3> <p> <b>In 1999 several UK Naturist Organisations and individuals put their views forward and the British Government have noted that naturists are concerned that the new law should not affect their chosen way of life. The new law would not make any allowance for naturists.<br> <font color="#FF0000"> Recommendation 54 suggested that old laws should be repealed and ...<br> </font></b> </font> <b><font size="5">"There should be a new offence of indecent exposure relating to exposing the penis when a man <u>knew or should have known</u> that he <u>mi</u>g<u>ht</u> cause fear, alarm or distress to another person."<br> </font>This wording would sweep away the old requirement to prove a deliberate "intent to insult" and using the word <i><b>might</b></i> means that <b> naturist men</b> on any unofficial beach would be guilty of indecent exposure.</b> </p> <hr> <p> <b><font color="#FF0000">The Government had 452 Responses to Rec 54 from interested parties and have issued the following on Page 62 of their Report.  <a href="http://www.sexualoffencesbill.homeoffice.gov.uk/sexoffences_conresp.pdf">Click here</a> for Full Report (PDF format) of the <a href="http://www.sexualoffencesbill.homeoffice.gov.uk/consult.htm">Consultation Documents</a></font></b> </p> <font FACE="TimesNewRoman,Bold"><b> <p>23 Agreed;</b></font> <b><font FACE="TimesNewRoman,Bold">21 Disagreed</font></b>; <b><font FACE="TimesNewRoman,Bold">408 Agreed in part</p> <p>Issues raised in Responses to Recommendation 54:</p> </font></b><font FACE="TimesNewRoman"> <p>The overwhelming number of responses on this recommendation were from private</font> <font FACE="TimesNewRoman">individuals and the majority focused on the need to ensure that the proposed offence</font> <font FACE="TimesNewRoman">does not interfere with the rights and individual freedoms of Naturists.</p> <p>Issues raised included:</p> </font><font FACE="SymbolMT"></font><font FACE="TimesNewRoman"> <ul> <li>the offence as worded would outlaw all public nudity</li> </font> <li><font FACE="TimesNewRoman">that there should be a test that a 'reasonable person' knew/should have known the</font> <font FACE="TimesNewRoman">effect of his behaviour</li> </font> <li><font FACE="TimesNewRoman">that there should be a test that the exposure would cause fear, alarm or distress to a</font> <font FACE="TimesNewRoman">'reasonable person'</li> </font> <li><font FACE="TimesNewRoman">that there should be a test that the penis was exposed in an aggressive or</font> <font FACE="TimesNewRoman">threatening manner</li> </font> <li><font FACE="TimesNewRoman">rather than creating an offence limited to one sex, there should be a presumption</font> <font FACE="TimesNewRoman">in law of equal treatment between the sexes unless there is an overwhelming case</font> <font FACE="TimesNewRoman">otherwise</li> </ul> </font><b><font FACE="TimesNewRoman,Bold"> <p>The Government's Response to the above issues is ...</p> </font></b><font FACE="TimesNewRoman,Italic"><i> <p>Agree the recommendation in part.</i></font>  <i><font FACE="TimesNewRoman,Italic">However, the offence should be couched in gender neutral terms i.e. exposure of the</font></i> <font FACE="TimesNewRoman,Italic"><i>genitalia in circumstances where the person intended to cause or was reckless as to</i></font> <i><font FACE="TimesNewRoman,Italic">causing alarm or distress. <b>It is not intended that the offence will apply to naturists</b></font></i><b> </b><i><font FACE="TimesNewRoman,Italic"><b>engaged in leisure pursuits with no intention of causing alarm or distress.</b></p> </font></i> <p align="center"> <b><font color="#FF0000"><i>This should be very Good News for Naturists, but read on ...</i></font></b> </p> <hr> <p><b><font color="#FF0000">The Home Office have now (Nov 2002) presented Parliament with their proposals for<br> <a href="http://www.protectingthepublic.homeoffice.gov.uk/">Protecting the Public</a> by reforming the Law on Sexual Offences of which <a href="http://www.protectingthepublic.homeoffice.gov.uk/chapter6.htm">Section 6</a> relates to Naturists and we reproduce an abbreviated form of the relevant sections below ...</font></b></p> <p><font face="TimesNewRoman"><b>76. </b>We will introduce a new gender neutral offence of <b>Indecent Exposure</b> relating to the exposure of both male and female genitalia in circumstances where the accused intended to cause or where it was reasonably likely that their behaviour would cause alarm or distress. This is designed to catch those whose behaviour is specifically intended to shock another person <i>and would not be used to criminalise, for example, naturists in regulated environments</i> or streakers at sporting events. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.<br> <b>77.</b> We will also be introducing a new public order offence, specifically targeted at specified sexual acts that take place in public. The new offence of <b>Sexual Behaviour in a Public Place</b> will send out a strong signal of our intention to protect people from being unwilling witnesses to overtly sexual behaviour that most people consider should take place in private. However it is not our intention to interfere in everyday behaviour in public that does not cause offence to the vast majority of people such as kissing or cuddling. It is also not our intention to criminalise sexual activity that takes place outdoors but in an isolated place where one would reasonably expect not to be observed. The maximum penalty for the offence will be 6 months imprisonment or a fine or both.<br> <b>78.</b> We will introduce a new offence of <b>Voyeurism</b> to cover cases where a person is secretly observed where he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This offence will apply where the voyeur intended to observe such acts for their own sexual gratification or that of others. It will cover cases where, for example, a peephole or camera is secretly installed. This offence will carry a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. We would want cases where a photographer takes indecent photographs of someone without their consent and for example posts them on the Internet or in a pornographic magazine to be treated particularly seriously by the courts.</font></p> <h4><font face="TimesNewRoman">If you wish to comment on any of the above, write to:</font></h4> <p><font face="TimesNewRoman">"Protecting the Public"<br> Home Office<br> Sentencing and Offences Unit<br> Room 314<br> 50 Queen Anne's Gate<br> London, SW1H 9AT</font></p> <p><font face="TimesNewRoman">Fax: 0207 273 2489   Email: <a href="mailto:Laura.McIvor@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk">Laura.McIvor@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk</a> </font></p> <hr> <h2><i><font color="#5E2F00">Postscript ...</font></i></h2> <p><b><u>SCN Asks:</u></b>  </p> <ul> <li>What does the phrase "<font face="TimesNewRoman">regulated environments" in paragraph 76 above</font> actually mean?  Obviously naturist clubs and designated beaches, but what about being nude in your own back garden or in the open countryside?</li> <li>Could 'observers' of naturists be accused of voyeurism under section 78?</li> <li>Surely the UK should shed its puritanical past and be coming more in line with its European neighbours in accepting all reasonable non-sexual public nudity as not being a punishable offence in the 21st Century?</li> </ul> <hr> <p><b><u>British Naturism</u></b>, the national organisation for naturism in the UK, is actively making representations (see <i>Contents</i>)</p> <p><b><u>The NUFF Collective</u></b> has made its Submission (see "Submission" in <i>Contents</i>)</p> <hr> <p><i><font size="3"><img border="0" src="images/scn_logo_new_no_box_01_sml.gif" align="left" width="28" height="26">[This page has been accessed from the SCN Web Site:<br>   <a href="http://www.smooth-naturists.co.uk">http://www.smooth-naturists.co.uk</a> ]</font></i></p> </body>