Quik Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Not quite - he's been the subject of an ASBO - thats what he's getting the time for. He's also been jailed for breaching his asbo true but a fair chunk of the time he's done has been for contempt of court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/1079.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 There isnt an offence of outraging public decency. So hard to get arrested for that. Outraging public decency is an indictable offence. Any person who carries out an act of obscene nature in the public can be charged with this offence. There is no need for the intention to affect disgust or annoy the public or not by his or her actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 (edited) Outraging public decency is an indictable offence. Any person who carries out an act of obscene nature in the public can be charged with this offence. There is no need for the intention to affect disgust or annoy the public or not by his or her actions. Sorry I stand corrected. I should have said nobody has ever charged him or claimed simply being naked amounts to an act of outraging public decency. The prosecutors have had a great deal of difficulty in charging him, hence the ASBO. If he were charged the outrage offence he would elect for trial by jury and in light of the bethell case would almsot certainly win. It would have to be 12 Gamstons on the jury. The requirement for the behaviour to 'outrage' public decency was said by Lord Simon in Knuller (Publishing, Printing and promotions) Ltd v DPP to: "go considerably beyond the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people". The circumstances surrounding the conduct will need to be carefully considered. A naturist whose intention is limited to going about his or her lawful business naked will not be guilty of this offence. So not applicable and the prefrence is to charge under S66, which theyve also found didnt work. Edited December 27, 2015 by 999tigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 He wouldn't. What he keeps getting locked up for is contempt of court for getting naked in the dock, which is a different issue. He has also being arrested for walking naked in public as well as being arrested shortly after being released from prison for breaching legal orders as consequence of being naked . The facts are if he kept his shorts on he would stay out of prison . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Sorry I stand corrected. I should have said nobody has ever charged him or claimed simply being naked amounts to an act of outraging public decency. The prosecutors have had a great deal of difficulty in charging him, hence the ASBO. If he were charged the outrage offence he would elect for trial by jury and in light of the bethell case would almsot certainly win. It would have to be 12 Gamstons on the jury. So not applicable and the prefrence is to charge under S66, which theyve also found didnt work. I don't agree he should be arrested either, but isn't this a "one law fits all" problem? There's perves who flash at some people who deserve charging, but doesn't the naked ramblers hobby fit into the his offence? It's all mad, but its the law that needs altering me thinks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 He has also being arrested for walking naked in public as well as being arrested shortly after being released from prison for breaching legal orders as consequence of being naked . The facts are if he kept his shorts on he would stay out of prison . Thats breaching an asbo which is unique for him. Desnt mean people have to agree with it. It doesnt mean being naked is illegal, they just made it so for him. You still havent explained how he is destroying family values. ---------- Post added 27-12-2015 at 21:52 ---------- I don't agree he should be arrested either, but isn't this a "one law fits all" problem? There's perves who flash at some people who deserve charging, but doesn't the naked ramblers hobby fit into the his offence? It's all mad, but its the law that needs altering me thinks!!! No. The outrage public decency is just not used it would have to be something extreme, say with an animal. There was an example of the student urinating on the war memorial in Barkers Pool, that was outraging public decency. There are other charges for the rambler both of which they have a problem prosecuting him under because by all accounts he is nude and goes about his business. I listed them a few pages back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Thats breaching an asbo which is unique for him. Desnt mean people have to agree with it. It doesnt mean being naked is illegal, they just made it so for him. You still havent explained how he is destroying family values. I said changing the law to accomomodate the likes of the naked rambler would be eroding family values and not the actions of this individual . There is a difference between law breakers and lawmakers who have a duty in my opinion to maintain traditional family values as well as introducing new legislation as a consequence of an ever changing World . The wife and I brought our children up to to respect others by not doing things like swearing in public , playing music too loud and obeying rules made by those in positions of authority . I believe there is a time and a place for everything and walking naked in a public place is not a traditional respectable or moral thing to do and lacks thought for others and respect for the law . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Parents have no more moral rights or duty, than any other individual in society. This is a fact a lot of parents seem to forget... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/1079.html Thanks for the link red, hadn't seen the appeal judgement before. Seems a depressingly circular argument. A thing is not a crime. We banned this specific guy from doing that thing. He is now a criminal for doing a thing that is not a crime because we banned him. We cannot reverse that because we told him the thing that was not a crime is if he does it. The law is an ass in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now