Recommendation 54

From Seenoevil

Recommendation 54

In 2001, the Government proposed changes to the law regarding sexual offences. This later became the Sexual Offences Act in 2003. Naturist groups in the UK made a submission, Recommendation 54, with concerns over section 8.2, Public Indecency.

In their submission to the Home Office, they raised the example of the Public Disorder Act 1986:

Prior to enactment of the Public Order Act 1986, assurances were given that it would not be used against naturists. Unfortunately this assurance was not enshrined in the Act and it does not seem to have been conveyed to those who have to enforce the law. Thus we conclude that naturists must be given explicit protection in any Act. Naturists have been prosecuted under Section 5 on a number of occasions and many more have been cautioned or warned. All defended cases that we know of have failed. Prosecutions have only succeeded where there were factors and circumstances which, in our view, meant that the situation was not one of reasonable and responsible naturism. The CPS is now extremely reluctant to pursue cases against naturists. Despite this, the police in some areas continue to harass, or even arrest naturists. A number of naturists have agreed to accept cautions, either through ignorance of the implications or because of the threat of a court appearance. Accepting a caution under duress, when there is little likelihood of the CPS even starting a prosecution, is a grave injustice, and in our opinion represents an abuse of the law.

This ilustrates the concern that new legislation can generate, despite the legislation appearing to be directed at public concerns. It arrises from laws being made to cover a perceived problem, but having unintended consequences due to a lack of clarity in the wording.

It also shows how the Home Office, and the Government will make assurances that the law is not directed at a particular group, while assuming that the Police will be able to distinguish between these people and those who the law is directed at.

The only solution, is for legislation to be clearly written to remove the possibility of ambiguity, or to consider if the need for the proposed legislation outweighs the problems it may bring to the legal system.