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.
Recommendation 54 suggested that old laws should be repealed and ...
"There should be a new offence of indecent exposure relating to exposing the penis when a man knew or should have known that he might cause fear, alarm or distress to another person."
This wording would sweep away the old requirement to prove a deliberate "intent to insult" and using the word might means that naturist men on any unofficial beach would be guilty of indecent exposure.

The Government had 452 Responses to Rec 54 from interested parties and have issued the following on Page 62 of their Report.  Click here for Full Report (PDF format) of the Consultation Documents

23 Agreed; 21 Disagreed; 408 Agreed in part

The overwhelming number of responses on this recommendation were from private individuals and the majority focused on the need to ensure that the proposed offence does not interfere with the rights and individual freedoms of Naturists.

• the offence as worded would outlaw all public nudity
• that there should be a test that a 'reasonable person' knew/should have known the effect of his behaviour
• that there should be a test that the exposure would cause fear, alarm or distress to a 'reasonable person'
• that there should be a test that the penis was exposed in an aggressive or threatening manner
• rather than creating an offence limited to one sex, there should be a presumption in law of equal treatment between the sexes unless there is an overwhelming case otherwise

Agree the recommendation in part.  However, the offence should be couched in gender neutral terms i.e. exposure of the genitalia in circumstances where the person intended to cause or was reckless as to causing alarm or distress. It is not intended that the offence will apply to naturists engaged in leisure pursuits with no intention of causing alarm or distress.

Top

This should be very Good News for Naturists, but read on ...

The Home Office have now (Nov 2002) presented Parliament with their proposals for
Protecting the Public by reforming the Law on Sexual Offences of which Section 6 relates to Naturists and we reproduce an abbreviated form of the relevant sections below ...

76. We will introduce a new gender neutral offence of Indecent Exposure 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 and would not be used to criminalise, for example, naturists in regulated environments or streakers at sporting events. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.
77. 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 Sexual Behaviour in a Public Place 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.
78. We will introduce a new offence of Voyeurism 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.

If you wish to comment on any of the above, write to:

"Protecting the Public"
Home Office
Sentencing and Offences Unit
Room 314
50 Queen Anne's Gate
London, SW1H 9AT

Fax: 0207 273 2489   Email: Laura.McIvor@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 

Top

Postscript ...

SCN Asks:  

• What does the phrase "regulated environments" in paragraph 76 above actually mean?  Obviously naturist clubs and designated beaches, but what about being nude in your own back garden or in the open countryside?
• Could 'observers' of naturists be accused of voyeurism under section 78?
• 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?

British Naturism, the national organisation for naturism in the UK, is actively making representations (see Contents)

The NUFF Collective has made its Submission (see "Submission" in Contents)

[This page has been accessed from the SCN Web Site:
  http://www.smooth-naturists.co.uk ]

Top