Naturists Campaigning for Naturism

Naked carpenter Not Guilty verdict

An Important (to naturism) victory happened in a Kent magistrates court yesterday. A newspaper report can be found at: http://www.kentonline.co.uk/malling/news/naked-carpenter-cleared-120208/    and is reproduced below. Though we await fuller details, there are some interesting features of this case, apart from the overall common sense approach of the magistrates:

  • The ‘Article 10’ Human Rights defence was accepted by the court (saying that being naked is a legitimate form of expression). This defence has been rejected in other high profile cases involving public nudity.
  • Mr Jenner was only naked on his own property, and though he was visible from the street, this was important to the magistrates. Had he strayed on to the street it may have been a different matter.
  • The magistrates did not consider the witnesses had been truly ‘harassed, alarmed or distressed’ (as is required by s.5 Public Order Act 1986 under which this was prosecuted). They were simply annoyed, or angry, or curious – which was not enough.
  • The Not Guilty verdict raises a serious question of the use of the Banning Order which had been placed on Mr Janner. This is an ‘Antisocial Behaviour’ move which police and Local Authorities can use without requiring a trial. It seems that in this case the magistrates found that the order was unnecessary ‘overkill’ used simply to pacify some outraged prudes.
  • This case was decided in a magistrates court, so it does not have the power of Legal Precedent. It should however make the Crown Prosecution Service take note and think twice before taking action in the future. It seems that on this occasion they ignored their own guidelines [ http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/nudity_in_public/ ].
  • The comments from the public on the Kentonline website (see link above) are nearly all supportive to Mr Janner, and critical of the complainants, police and CPS. It seems that general public opinion is not at all anti-naturist, and that objectors, though noisy, are a minority only. We need to show the Authorities that the public don’t mind naturism at all, so please – everyone make your views known when the subject comes up. Silence just gives way to the noisy prudes.

Kentonline report:

Naked carpenter Robert Jenner, of Snodland, cleared of public order offences

07 February 2017
by Ed McConnell
A naked carpenter has been cleared of 11 public order charges after a two-day trial.Iraq War veteran Rob Jenner was arrested four times in September and October after police were repeatedly called to his Eccles property.The 42-year-old was carrying out DIY and gardening at the Stevens Road terraced house wearing nothing but his work boots.

This evening at Maidstone Magistrates’ Court after almost two hours of deliberation magistrates returned not guilty verdicts, concluding his freedom of expression outweighed any alarm caused.

The bench had heard from four witnesses whose reactions to Mr Jenner’s actions ranged from awkwardness to anger.

Frederick Black said he was so disgusted when he saw him bent over mixing cement he dialled 999 while Lisa Jarrett saw him on several occasions and said it made her feel “not very nice.”

Michael Smith was so angry when he spotted Mr Jenner leaning on a rake he marched up to his door and demanded he get out of the house.

Paul Edwards, prosecuting, said Mr Jenner was an exhibitionist and not a naturist and he must have known the consequences of his actions as he had erected a sign asking people not to be offended.

But Alex Davey, defending, said he had never intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress and was simply exercising his right to be naked.

Giving evidence this afternoon Mr Jenner was resolute in his belief he had done nothing wrong, telling magistrates he was fighting for tolerance.

He said naturism gave him “a sense of freedom and liberty,” adding: “There’s no

One Response to Naked carpenter Not Guilty verdict

  • We should beware of being too euphoric about this verdict. Two of the magistrates’ findings should give us pause for thought. First, Duncan’s comment that “The magistrates did not consider the witnesses had been truly ‘harassed, alarmed or distressed’” is not true. They actually said “…we are satisfied you knew your behaviour was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.” Their failure to distinguish between ‘alarm and distress’ and ‘annoyance or anger’ is a matter of concern.
    Secondly, the magistrates said “We find your freedom does not amount to disorderly behaviour because you were in your own garden which has restricted views.” This implies that someone in a garden with less restricted views could be convicted of disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Please Help Us to Campaign for You!

To make a donation to NAG, please use the Donate link at the top of this page. Alternatively, we will appreciate any donation no matter how small sent to our registered address on our Contact page.