Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c42)
The final wording, which includes the qualification of intention:
66 Exposure
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
Some quotes from the committee stages in the House of Lords:
Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
My concern in this part of the Bill has always been to protect naturists going about their perfectly harmless business and to prevent their falling foul of over-zealous police officers and magistrates. In that respect I greatly welcome government Amendments Nos. 343A and 348A. My amendment should also protect naturists from mischievous members of the public who might seek to use Clause 70 as a defence against accusations of voyeurism.
I do not practise naturism but I can certainly imagine its attractions. The human body is nothing to be ashamed of, and we must ensure that we are not over-prescriptive in what we allow people to do, either in private or in the company of other consenting, like-minded people. Exposing our skin to the sun and air is something we all like to do to a greater or lesser extent, especially when the sun shines and we are on a beach. It is estimated that there are about 1 million naturists in Britain. They enjoy swimming, walking, sports and gardening while returning to the way they were born, unencumbered by clothing. In other parts of Europe there are many millions more.
There has been considerable concern among the naturist community about Clause 70. I am delighted that the Government have responded to it. Unless the Bill is amended, naturists run the risk of having their names added to the sex offenders' register and facing up to a two-year sentence. As one of them put it in a letter to me:
"There needs to be a clear distinction between those who enjoy nude recreation, which is harmless, and that which is unsuitable in any public place, even a beach on a hot day".
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
We are here trying to deal with flashers - disgusting characters they are; I have come across them on too many occasions. We are not trying to deal with someone who for some other reason exposes his genitals. I would especially cite in this context the streaker. I do not want someone who streaks at a Lord's cricket match stuffed on the sex offenders' register. That is not a sexual offence; it may be due to a bit of alcohol and exuberance; but it has nothing whatever to do with intentionally offending the public.
If the Government do not want to pursue that route, there are other points that I wish to make and that are made by my amendments. First, I do not see that the law has or should have any part to play in what happens in a person's private dwelling house, so I would like the words, "in a public place", inserted. Secondly, we should require that someone knows and intends that someone should be caused alarm and distress. There must be a guilty mind, an intention to cause distress. Just because your maiden aunt, whom you know shrieks at the sight of a naked ankle, happens to see you and you know that she happens to be around should not stop you sunbathing in the nude in your own garden if that is what you want to do. My third amendment does a bit of what the Government are doing, but more largely and successfully. I am delighted that they are doing it, but they have not gone far enough.
Baroness Blatch (Conservative)
Then there are the naturists. On 8th April, the chairman of the Central Council for British Naturism gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee about Clause 70. He complained that, to some, naturism is,
"a very moral and proper way of life".
He even went so far as to call it "a family activity". He said that he did not want naturists criminalised by the new offence and called for an amendment similar to the ones being proposed here.
When Mr Hilary Benn gave evidence to the same committee on 29th April, he said that Clause 70,
"is not in any way intending to criminalise naturists".
It is clear that these amendments are designed to give effect to that reassurance. But does he really mean that he does not wish "in any way" to criminalise naturists; that is, not in any circumstances? What if scores of them invade a public beach? What about those who cause the National Trust endless difficulties because they insist on exposing themselves on public land? Are the Government creating a kind of "nudists' charter"?
and
The fact is that most victims of this kind of exposure will not care about the motive. If a mother with young children is confronted in a shopping arcade by a naked man, causing confusion, distress and fear to her children, she will not care whether his motive was sexual. She will simply want to be able to tell her children that the police have arrested the man and that he will be punished for it.
She seems to see no distinction between flashing at someone and just being naked. Is any normal child terrified of seeing a naked but unthreatening person?
Sections 67 and 68 of the Act may also be of interest:
67 Voyeurism
(1) A person commits an offence if
(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.(2) A person commits an offence if
(a) he operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third person (B) doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention.(3) A person commits an offence if
(a) he records another person (B) doing a private act,
(b) he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and
(c) he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention.(4) A person commits an offence if he instals equipment, or constructs or adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under subsection (1).
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.68 Voyeurism: interpretation
(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and
(a) the persons genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear,
(b) the person is using a lavatory, or
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.(2) In section 67, structure includes a tent, vehicle or vessel or other temporary or movable structure.