Go Back BACK

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Background

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.

The then Minister of State at the Home Office, Lord Falconer, explained:

  • “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 Solicitor-General, Harriet Harman said:

  • "Hopefully, genuine naturist activity, whatever that might mean, does not include the intention to cause alarm or distress, so I hope that in dropping knowledge from the offence and leaving only intention, naturists will be reassured."

Given all this, naturists who are simply sunbathing, swimming or walking without clothes and who are being reasonably considerate, should not be subject to Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 repeals the relevant sections of two, much older, statutes that related to "indecent exposure", namely the Vagrancy Act 1824 (c. 83) and Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (c. 89)

Despite this, many people - including Police officers - persist in referring to incidents as "indecent exposure", an offence which no longer exists.

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.