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 charged the offence of outraging public decency as being in the sight and view of the servant and divers others. It was argued that publicity was of the essence of the offence and that therefore it was essential that it be committed in a public place so that the natural consequence of it was that it would be seen by others and that it was actually seen by others.
Held: The Recorder of London held that it was not necessary to prove that the public would detect them as the parties would seek as much privacy as they could, but was their position such that there was no reasonable probability of their being discovered? It was sufficient that they exposed themselves in a place where they were likely to be witnessed by others.
Citations:
(1844) 1 Cox 74
Cited by:
Cited – Hamilton, Regina v CACD 16-Aug-2007
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.258779
