As an avowed naturist [NK] likes nothing better than to stroll naked through the countryside or take a skinny dip in a remote reservoir.
But today the naked rambler found himself hauled before the courts after he stumbling over a shocked policeman.
The off-duty officer had been alerted after a woman dog walker wandered past him with a 'disgusted' look on her face.
..
Yesterday, [K] was fined £150 and ordered to pay £150 costs after he was found guilty of causing alarm or distress.
This is one of those cases where prejudice clearly won over what the law says. Since when has a 'disgusted' look been the same as alarm or distress. Since when has a policeman, on or off duty, been shocked by the sight of a naked man walking.
...
PC Buxton also gave evidence, describing the woman’s reaction: He said: “She was walking her dog and constantly looking behind. She was worried or upset about something and her general body language didn’t look as though she was comfortable.”
...
Outcome of appeal, from Yorkshire Evening Post
... yesterday a judge at Leeds Crown Court told him that the charges would be dismissed because it was unlikely that [K's] naked walk had caused anyone any distress.
The court had heard that [K] was arrested by off-duty police officer PC Mark Buxton, who said he saw a woman appear “distressed” when she had noticed [K] rambling on the Chevin on October 11 last year.
But [K] had denied the claims, and said naturism “is about body freedom and in a way it is a mild protest against the expected social norms of wearing clothes every day.”
Sitting with two justices, judge Guy Kearl said PC Buxton, who said he had been shocked by the incident, would not have been able to determine if the woman was distressed.
He said that the police officer’s reaction to seeing [K] could also be considered “extreme given his experience.”
Dismissing the charges, he added: “This behaviour was not carried out in front of a school or in the street in a town centre. It took place on moorland in broad daylight.
“In view of the location of this incident, the time of day and the reaction of others as we have found it to be, we do not consider that anyone was likely to be harassed by this behaviour or intimidated or distressed.”
The judge said there were no sexual motives behind incident, adding: “He was not deliberately flaunting himself or seeking attention or jumping out and doing what is colloquially called flashing.”
...
So his conviction is overturned, but at the expense of his job and several thousand pounds. Fair? Let's just hope this outcome will influence others.