Legal clarification

[Davie]

The British Naturism (BN) legal team have been working for a long time with both the CPS and the College of Policing. As a result there is clarification concerning prosecution.
For simple nudity with no sexual angle prosecution should not take place and S66 Sexual Offences Act is not appropriate and neither is S5 Public Order Act. No naturist activity should be prosecuted under local bylaws. This is good news following a lot of hard work by the team

For full details see:

here
and
here

Davie 

[nuduke]

Excellent news.
Thank you for posting that, Davie.
This does seem to be a significant step forward not least that if apprehended whilst innocently practicing naturism one can wave that paper at the officer in attendance.  It's sort of a nudist license plate!
John

[Greenbare Woods]

Big THANK YOU to BN for their hard work negotiating that Police Guidance accepting that nudism is legal in the UK.

If I lived in the UK I would carry a copy of this police guidance with me in a pack while rambling naked through towns and other places. 

This guidance FINALLY gives the police an understanding of what we have been saying about nudity being legal for some time.  Naturism in the UK does not need to be "secret" or hidden.  Brits do not need to cover up when meeting other people on trails while rambling, nor while gardening in their yard.  If a neighbor complains about naked gardening hand them a copy.

Now if we could just get more police in the US to adopt a similar acceptance of our laws.

[Peter S]

Thanks for the links, Davie, and for your efforts if you had any input to the discussions that brought this about. As. On says, having a copy of that in the rucksack might not go amiss.

Peter

[eyesup]

Too often police are given the task to enforce vague laws. That’s not their fault. Most officers try their best to follow the guidelines, but it’s hard to be consistent with fuzzy legislation. There will always be those in enforcement that create problems, just like there are always people that push the limits against laws they don’t like.

But, there is no substitute for clarity. If the citizen isn’t sure of their position and law enforcement isn’t sure of it’s role, it creates a perfect environment for misinterpretation.

I agree with Bob. Kudos to the BN society for hanging in there and making a great start on this policy. I’m sure the lighter paperwork load will be appreciated all around. And having a copy of this regulation laminated and in your pack would make life easier.

Duane

[BlueTrain]

There are two problems with clarity. The first is achieving it. The second is that it can remove all discretion from not only law enforcement but the entire judicial system. Sentencing guidelines tend to be harsh and there is no reason to believe that laws clearly stated in plain English would not be either.

[John P]

I'm a little surprised about this, because it seems to end enforcement of Section 5 of the Public Order Act against nudity. That's the part which forbids conduct "likely to cause alarm and distress" even if it's not intentional. The PDF document says "in recent years attempted prosecutions of naturists have all failed" but Steve Gough was convicted as recently as 2013:
https://www.hebdenbridgetimes.co.uk/news/crime/naked-rambler-loses-challenge-over-conviction-1-6227163

Maybe things have changed in the last 5 years. O tempora, O mores.

[Greenbare Woods]

I'm a little surprised about this, because it seems to end enforcement of Section 5 of the Public Order Act against nudity. That's the part which forbids conduct "likely to cause alarm and distress" even if it's not intentional.

What they are saying is that just being naked is not behavior that is, "likely to cause alarm or distress," as lawmakers enacted the law.  The legislative body did NOT just say that being naked is illegal.  It has to be naked PLUS additional overt behavior "likely to cause alarm or distress."  The law making body did not go into detail specifying what additional behavior they meant, but they clearly intended something more than just being naked.   The Public Orders Atc, Section 5, talks about "uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour,..."  Going about your normal business (while naked) is not overly threatening or abusing someone else.   The Public Order Act was obviously stretched beyond its reasonable limits to pretend that minding your own business while naked is deliberately causing a disturbance. 

The police, prosecutors, and courts may have gotten it wrong with Steve Gough (did get it wrong in my opinion), but the publicity he created is probably a big part of why they are trying to get it right now. 

Hooray for the UK Police and prosecutors.  Hooray for BN.  They all got it right. 

My guess is that there will be a lot more naked people wandering about in England and Wales from now on. 

Bob

[Peter S]

One of the problems we’ve had over public nakedness has been the varied interpretation of the rules - what BlueTrain describes as discretion - and the way different rules get used to support those variations. Steve Gough was caught out by some plainly expressed prejudices against his nudity, and the public order case could be (marginally) employed because he was walking down the high street. I think the new guidelines make it clear that simple nudity is not illegal and it will need more than prejudice to justify an arrest.

Peter

[eyesup]

You’re confusing clarity with perfection. That is certainly difficult to achieve. I wouldn’t want to be given the task.

Clarity is easy. Just don’t be intentionally obscure. And there is never a problem with clarity, especially when the responsibility of the interpretation is sloughed off to the officer. Then a mistake on the street is elevated to the court where it has to be addressed. This is a waste of taxpayer money and the court’s time. The only beneficiaries are the lawyers.

Clarity for the enforcement officer is a boon as it gives them clear boundaries as to what they can and can’t do. If an offended person thinks the officer should have gone further, let THEM take to the court on their own time and dime. Frivolous charges cause waste of the court’s resources. It gives the street cop and the court clear guides on when to move forward or dismiss. Discretion still lies with the enforcement. How is this a problem?

Duane

[eyesup]

. . . "in recent years attempted prosecutions of naturists have all failed" but Steve Gough was convicted as recently as 2013 . . .

You mean that pronouncements from government officials occasionally ignores reality? Say it isn’t so!

Maybe things have changed . . .

Change comes in on little cat feet.

Duane

[Peter S]

I think the flow charts provided in the guidance make the system simple and easier to follow, with less options for prejudiced discretion, especially given the emphasis on the fact that just because someone doesn’t like doesn’t make it illegal!

[jbeegoode]

How would this effect the British governed places around the world? Places with nicer weather and beaches. Got any quaint tropical colonies left?

Like Cayman Islands, Montserrat's governor, Turks and Caicos Islands, or any other pieces that are laying about?

Seriously.
Jbee

[Peter S]

I think you’ll find the rules are localised and this won’t make any difference to what goes on there already.

[Davie]

All self governing with the UK looking after defence and foreign affairs. You only mention some but there's also the Falklands, and South Georgia and a few other windswept and icy places. Perhaps we ought to look towards recolonising  that space between Canada and Mexico.

I suggested that once whilst in Cheyane on or near the 4th July just before a cowboy shootout started. Shortly after they called me out and hanged me. It was all great fun and I've still got the cowboy hat they gave me which was fun to bring back home on the plane

Davie