Go Back BACK

Outraging Public Decency

This is a common law offence, it was developed by the courts and has never been defined or debated by Parliament. Its consequent vagueness has allowed the police, judges and (since 2004) magistrates to adapt it as it suits them.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service:

This is an offence that can be dealt with either in the Magistrates or the Crown court. This requires a person to commit an act in public that is seen by at least one person and is of such a lewd, obscene or disgusting character as to constitute an outrage of public decency.

Since "outrage" is not defined in statute, we have to rely on judicial interpretation.

In 1973 Lord Simon, sitting in the House of Lords, [Knuller v. DPP]. said:

..'outrage', like 'corrupt' is a very strong word. 'Outraging public decency' goes considerably beyond offending the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people.

In 1990 the Lord Chief Justice [Regina v May] defined it as:

So there must have been proved to have been an act of such a lewd, obscene or disgusting nature as to amount to an outrage on public decency. It is not necessary to prove that the act in fact disgusted those in whose purview it was committed. It is sufficient if it is calculated so to do.

So far as the public nature of the offence is concerned, it must be proved that more than one person must at least have been able to see the act. If one person is proved to have seen the act and others might have seen it taking place, that is enough.

From the above it can be seen that to be an offence the act must be in the presence or sight of two or more members of the public, at least one of whom must witness the act. A recording from a CCTV camera is not a member of the public but in this context a police officer may be.

It should be the case that to secure a conviction of Outraging Public Decency the behaviour in question needs to have a strong sexual element - such as masturbation or sexual intercourse. Nudists acting in a lawful manner should not be threatened by this law, but charges of Outraging Public Decency have been laid against people engaging in sexual activity on naturist beaches.

Prior to 20 January 2004 Outraging Public Decency was only triable on inditement (i.e. at a Crown Court). The option of a jury provided naturists with considerable protection as it was most unlikely that a jury would convict. Trial before magistrates removes this protection.

At Bournemouth Magistrates' Court in October 2004, a couple from Christchurch admitted a charge of outraging public decency. They had been observed "performing sex acts" behind a windbreak at Studland beach. Magistrates fined them £200 each and ordered them to pay £43 costs.

In at least one other case naturists who were charged with Outraging Public Decency were cleared on the directions of a Judge because they were not engaged in any sexual activity.

Please Note:
The information given on this page is intended only as a general guide to the the legal position . It was not written by a legally-qualified individual.
It should not be relied upon as a definitive guide to the law , and is only applicable to England and Wales. The law in Scotland and Northern Ireland may be different.
Neither the author nor the publishers of this FactFile can be held responsible should naturism or nudity cause you to be arrested and / or prosecuted for any offence.