Naked Bike Ride and the Law
- Details
- Published on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 09:23
Naturists who intentionally display their genitals in public are usually arrested for Indecent Exposure, see cases covered in the media in the last year:
- http://bit.ly/nGwSBG
- http://bit.ly/nYTmQK
- http://bit.ly/nTXsUH
It is unclear why we are not protected by the Indecent Exposure law when there are multiple offenders in the case of the Naked Bike Ride.
We should be also protected under Public Order Act 1986 (http://bit.ly/qVzfT5 - case of naked cyclist arrested in Bournemouth)
Public Order Act 1986 Section 5 - Harassment, alarm or distress
A person is guilty of an offence if he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. It is a defence for the accused to prove that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or that his conduct was reasonable.
This is the law that the Police initially quoted with regards to the legality of the Naked Bike Ride:
Sexual Offenses Act 2003 Section 66 - Exposure
A person commits an offence if he intentionally exposes his genitals, andhe intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
What has not been mentioned was the case law determining that naturists would be protected while swimming/sunbathing etc would not necessarily be relevant where the cyclists were in knowledge of the offence:
During the Parliamentary consideration of the Bill, naturists mounted a concerted campaign against the wording of the new 'Exposure' offence, which - although it was said to needed to deal with the problem of "flashers" - was so loosely worded that it could have criminalised all naturist activity. Government ministers repeatedly offered assurances that this was not the purpose of the new law and eventually amended its wording so as to offer greater protection for naturists.As it is now worded, the offence of exposure would not cover being "reckless" as to whether alarm or distress is caused by intentionally exposing the genitals - as was originally proposed. The amended wording suggests that the exposure would be criminal only if it were done in the knowledge or with the intention that somebody would see and be distressed.Minister of State at the Home Office, Lord Falconer, explained that: "We are removing the recklessness requirement, so that the naturist will be guilty of an offence only if he knew or intended that what he did would cause alarm or distress. It will not be an offence because he knows…that there is a proportion of the population who.... find such actions disgusting. That would not, as a matter of law, make it a criminal offence, because he would not know in the circumstances that ‘alarm or distress’ would be caused—which is the wording of the offence. ‘Recklessness’ is about a risk. Knowing or intending that alarm will be caused is about actually knowing the facts."
The Police have defended their lack of action using the fact that previous Naked Bike Rides have not been stopped, and advised that we petition our MP's to bring about a change of legislation. Please sign the petition to bring this matter to the attention of the House of Commons.
Sign here: