The defendant appealed his conviction for outraging public decency. He had surreptitously filmed up the skirts of women in a supermarket. The offence was only discovered after the films were found on a search of his home for other material. The defendant contended that the offence was not committed since nobody had witnessed the offence.
Held: The appeal failed. Proof of the offence of outraging public decency requires two elements: ‘i) The act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public decency; this element constituted the nature of the act which had to be proved before the offence could be established.
ii) It took place in a public place and must have been capable of being seen by two or more persons who were actually present, even if they had not actually seen it. This constituted the public element of the offence which had to be proved.’ Though not seen the acts of the defendant were capable of being seen, and had they been seen would have caused the outrage to the possibility of which the offence was directed.
The court had not been wrong either to join the indictments or not to separate them
Lord Justice Thomas
[2007] EWCA Crim 2062, Times 16-Oct-2007, [2008] 2 WLR 107, [2008] QB 224
Bailii
Protection of Children Act 1978 14
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sedley’s case 1675
The defendant Sir Charles Sedley showed himself naked on the balcony of a house in Covent Garden in the presence of several people and urinated on them. He was indicted at common law for outraging public decency and pleaded guilty, the magistrate . .
Cited – Delaval’s Case 1763
The defendant was convicted for outraging public decency, having procuring a girl for the purposes of prostitution. . .
Cited – Rose vDirector of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Mar-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for outraging public decency by behaving in an indecent manner contrary to common law. He had been in the foyer of a bank at night with a girl who performed oral sex. The action could have been seen, but was . .
Cited – Regina v Mayling 1963
To establish the offence of outraging public decency, it is not necessary to prove that any particular person was outraged. . .
Cited – Crunden’s Case 1809
The defendant went bathing at Brighton; he was seen as he undressed and swam in the sea. He was convicted of outraging decency for exposing his naked person in presence of people.
Held: By exposing his naked person he was guilty of a . .
Cited – Rex v Rouverard 1830
(York) The defendant, a French master was accused of outraging pubic decency: ‘for exposing his person at a window in Micklegate, York, to excite a girl who was a servant on the second floor of the house on the opposite side of the street.’
Cited – Mirehouse v Rennell 1833
Parke B described how the elements of a common law offence are to be distilled from the cases in which the relevant principles have been set out: ‘Our common-law system consists in the applying to new combinations of circumstances those rules of law . .
Cited – Rex v Bunyan and Morgan 1844
The two defendants were seen by a servant through the window to be exposing themselves to each other and committing lewd acts in a parlour room of a public house where they were alone; she summoned others who witnessed the act. The indictment . .
Cited – Rex v Orchard and Thurtle 1848
(Old Bailey) The defendants were each charged with exposure to each other and the commission of lewd acts in a urinal in a market which was alleged to be a public place; no one could see in from the outside. The prosecution argued that if the . .
Cited – Rex v Webb 1848
(Exchequer Chamber) The defendant was accused of having exposed himself to a barmaid in the bar of a public house when there was no one else in sight. The charge was for outraging public decency contrary to common law. She ran off and informed her . .
Cited – Rex v Watson 1847
The defendant having indecently exposed himself in Paddington Churchyard to a 12 year old girl was charged with committing a public nuisance.
Held: Only one person had seen him. The charge could not be sustained unless there had been at least . .
Cited – Regina v Thallman 1863
Thallman had exposed himself on the roof of a house in Albemarle Street, Piccadilly opposite to a window in a house where females lived. He was indicted for doing this in the ‘sight and view’ of those who lived opposite and of those going along the . .
Cited – Regina v Farell 1862
(Court of Criminal Appeal in Ireland) The defendant exposed himself on a public road so that he was seen by one person as there was only one person passing at the time, though he could have been seen by others who might have been passing.
Cited – regina v Elliot and White 1861
The defendants appealed their convictions for exposing themselves on Wandsworth Common. The indictment charged them with doing so in the ‘sight and view’ of divers others. There was evidence that they had sexual intercourse on the common, but not . .
Cited – Regina v Holmes 1853
The defendant had exposed himself on a bus. He was indicted for exposing himself in a public vehicle frequented and used by divers subjects of the Queen ‘to the view of’ them and in a second count for exposing himself in a public place. It was . .
Cited – Regina v Kray CACD 1969
The court dealt with a case where prejudice was claimed on behalf of the defendant because of publicity before the trial. Lawton J said: ‘The drama of a trial almost always has the effect of excluding from recollection that which went before.’
Cited – Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner HL 1971
Two offences can constitute a series of offences, but there has to be some nexus between the offences. Lord Pearson said: ‘In my opinion, however, it is important to notice that there has to be a series of offences of a similar character. For this . .
Cited – Regina v Barrell and Wilson CACD 1979
The court set out the test for whether charges could properly be rejoined after severance on the indictment. . .
Cited – Regina v Christou (George) HL 10-May-1996
Separate sex offence charges may be tried together even though the evidence is not to be allowed to be accumulated as between the offences. While the question of the admissibility of ‘similar fact’ evidence in relation to various counts joined in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.258768
