International Young Naturists Organisation
Naturist Resources => NEWS! International Naturist News and Travel Reports => Europe => Topic started by: Danee on March 30, 2013, 04:18:12 pm
-
Prosecution for garden Naturism. An attempt by the police and CPS to extend the law has been defeated.
This case was contested vigorously with neighbours appearing as witnesses complaining of nakedness in an adjoining rear garden observed by their child. A trampoline was used to overview a 6' fence and the nudity was observed from an upstairs window. The activities were painting a shed and sitting reading. This was all very similar to a previous case where the CPS had decided that they were unlikely to obtain a conviction.
A proportionate response is required to such complaints under the Human Rights Act on the basis of belief, respect for privacy and family life, and freedom of speech & expression.
Although people express their distress, often amplifying it to extreme lengths, as in this instance, a significant factor is any intention of the perpetrator to be seen and to inculcate fear. The law allows freedom of expression a fairly wide latitude so long as it doesn't involve violence or incite violence in followers.
The Judge warned that anyone reacting to nudity with violence will face prosecution themselves.
The Judge concluded that there was "No case to answer" and curtailed the trial, dismissing the case.
The solicitors and their in-house barrister did an excellent job. It was gratifying to see that the material BN provided made a considerable contribution.
This article is based on the initial reports of BN observers in the court room and we have not studied the hearing in detail yet. We are not lawyers so this article is not legal advice but this trial should instil a little confidence.
We will provide a more detailed account when we have had opportunity to analyse the case in detail. We will also be writing to the CPS yet again asking for measures to stop abuses of the law.
From: http://www.bn.org.uk/articles.php/_/campaigning/prosecution-for-garden-naturism (http://www.bn.org.uk/articles.php/_/campaigning/prosecution-for-garden-naturism)
-
Thanks for sharing Danee.
Why is it that whenever naturism and the law are brought up it's always the Police and the CPS that are made out to be the bad guys? We are there to provide a service e.g. stop people breaking the law and prosecuting those that do. But good on the judge for throwing this case out of the window, it's ridiculous that this was ever brought to court in the first place. And again looking at this it was the parents that complained and not the child. I have attended one such call that resulted in the complaint being dropped, complete waste of my time.
In fact as i see it those who actually looked over the fence of these poor peoples garden should have been prosecuted for invasion of privacy.
-
wisdom prevailed which is always good !
thanks for the article, Danee
-
"A trampoline was used to overview a 6' fence and the nudity was observed from an upstairs window."
I like how the wording is here; someone was using means to look over the fence (1m 83cm high) and then "nudity was observed".
Clearly the parents had no power over the situation... :laugh:
Like getting rid of the trampoline or moving it to another part of the yard (depends on how big the yard is, though) or covering the bottom half of the window upstairs with curtain or something ... or telling their kid to stop staring at the neighbors yard, since it is very rude.
So they sue the neighbor. :undecided:
-
Does CPS mean the same thing in the UK that it does in the US? (Child Protective Services)
-
In fact as i see it those who actually looked over the fence of these poor peoples garden should have been prosecuted for invasion of privacy.
Darn right. Now I don't have a garden but I'm pretty sure the garden does a good job at covering a person up. For some reason I feel like they were trying to see them naked so they could file a complaint. I'm pretty sure I'm wrong but that's the vibe I'm getting.
-
Does CPS mean the same thing in the UK that it does in the US? (Child Protective Services)
Crown Prosecution Service.
-
In fact as i see it those who actually looked over the fence of these poor peoples garden should have been prosecuted for invasion of privacy.
Darn right. Now I don't have a garden but I'm pretty sure the garden does a good job at covering a person up. For some reason I feel like they were trying to see them naked so they could file a complaint. I'm pretty sure I'm wrong but that's the vibe I'm getting.
I agree with you for trying to see them naked, but i guess that's just human curiosity. If somebody is naked in there garden I'm sure that a lot of people would want to get a better look. It's a bit like walking past a nude beach without wanting to take a look i suppose but the curiosity gets to you.
To my knowledge there isn't a law in the UK which prevents you from actually being naked in your own garden. Simple nudity is not a crime it only becomes a crime when somebody perceives it as 'offensive nudity' e.g. going naked with the intention of causing alarm or distress.
-
Bloody nosy busybodies...
-
Does CPS mean the same thing in the UK that it does in the US? (Child Protective Services)
Crown Prosecution Service.
Cool, thanks for the clarification.
Also, this article reads like the conclusion to a case, but where the link to the case itself?
-
Nudity is only illegal in the UK if it "causes offence". The law is supposed to allow for asking people to stop, etc but sometimes gets trotted out by busybodies.
As a lawyer myself, I do scratch my head wondering whomever in the CPS picked this file up and went ahead with it. The police have to investigate everything so I don't entirely blame them (I also offer a note that we're only hearing one side of the story, so take it with a pinch of salt), but this shouldn't really have gone as far as a trial. Good on the judge for throwing it out.
Quite a few public nudity prosecutions are thrown out by judges, in my experience.
-
Why is it that whenever naturism and the law are brought up it's always the Police and the CPS that are made out to be the bad guys?
. . . it's ridiculous that this was ever brought to court in the first place.
True, the complainant in the case is the initial bad guy, but the police should have been bright enough to inform them of the law, but didn't, and the Crown Prosecutor should have been bright enough to refuse to prosecute, but didn't. And THAT is why is it that whenever naturism and the law are brought up it's always the Police and the CPS that are made out to be the bad guys. Because they choose to be the bad guys.
-
Why is it that whenever naturism and the law are brought up it's always the Police and the CPS that are made out to be the bad guys?
. . . it's ridiculous that this was ever brought to court in the first place.
True, the complainant in the case is the initial bad guy, but the police should have been bright enough to inform them of the law, but didn't, and the Crown Prosecutor should have been bright enough to refuse to prosecute, but didn't. And THAT is why is it that whenever naturism and the law are brought up it's always the Police and the CPS that are made out to be the bad guys. Because they choose to be the bad guys.
That's quite a broad generalisation, some of us are bright enough to look up or ask if we are not completely clear on a law. It saves a lot of time and paperwork on our part, there is noting worse than taking someone into custody, booking them in and then having to release them.
-
But the cases when they are smart enough to check are not the ones that are being brought up, so the cases that are brought up end up being those where the police do something stupid.
-
Well atleast our rights are being considdered. Yay on the judges.
-
. . . there is noting worse than taking someone into custody, booking them in and then having to release them.
Yes, there is.
It seems to me that actually being the person who is falsely arrested would be much worse.
About ten per cent of all arrests made by the U.S. border cops are false . . . they have a rewards system of gift cards and extra time off for officers who make more arrests so from the perspective of that particular police agency more is better.
-
. . . there is noting worse than taking someone into custody, booking them in and then having to release them.
Yes, there is.
It seems to me that actually being the person who is falsely arrested would be much worse.
You'd be right. In most cases, all you need is the ACCUSATION, and your life is pretty much fucked from then on. Even if you're proven innocent, most won't even give a damn.
-
Depends on the career, really. Having arrests show up on criminal record checks is a very bad idea anyway, but a lot of employers don't care or just don't bother checking.
-
:323232 VICTORY FOR NUDISM :)
-
Let this be a lesson to people who file frivolous complaints.