Appeal against conviction clarifies offence of “doing an act outraging public decency”

17 Mar 2006

On 16th March 2006 the High Court heard Rose v DPP [2006] EWHC 852 (Admin), a “case stated” appeal from Sheffield Magistrates Court that concerned Keith Rose, a homeless man in his 40s, who had been charged and convicted of doing an act outraging public decency. At 1am on 2 February 2005 he had engaged in an act of oral sex with his girlfriend in a bank foyer. No one witnessed the intimacy, but unfortunately for Mr Rose, the bank manager viewed CCTV footage the next day and police were called. The magistrate found that the bank manager was a witness to the act, and that it would have been possible for a passer by to have seen if they had been there. Therefore the offence was made out.

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction on the basis that such offence had to be witnessed, and that there had to be others actually present who could see the act. A notional bystander was insufficient, the requirement of publicity was that there had to be more than one person in a position to actually see the act. The court further doubted whether the bank manager was a “witness” as she had viewed the footage historically, the essence of the offence being that it was committed “in public”. If the manager was a witness, when was the offence completed? When the act was done, or when it was viewed at some future point?

The case is legally important as it clarifies the elements of this common law offence, which were somewhat ambiguous on modern authority, and appeared to have been watered down (as evidenced by the narrative on this offence in Archbold 2006).

The practical effect of the decision is that intimacy by consenting partners, and especially homeless people, is not criminal unless done in the presence or sight of two or more members of the public, at least one of whom must witness the act, or if done with the intention to cause alarm or distress to others (which would constitute an offence pursuant to Section 66, Sexual Offences Act 2003 ; “exposure”).

Garden Court North Chambers’ Pete Weatherby represented Mr Rose, instructed by Howells solicitors.

Share this

Chambers news

Chambers news

Coronavirus update 24th March 2020

Dear clients, colleagues and friends of Garden Court North, We would like to provide a further update regarding our arrangements during the coronavirus outbreak. In...

Chambers news

Members of the Immigration Team raise concerns over coronavirus practice and procedure

Members of the Garden Court North Chambers Immigration Team have joined chambers working across England and Wales in writing to the President of the First-tier...

Chambers news

Members of GCN Immigration Team write to FTT President regarding ASA notice

25th March 2020 Dear Sir, We write further to the consideration of a notice (hereafter “the 24th March 2020 Notice”) being generally circulated to practitioners on 24th and 25th...

Chambers news

For Renters (updated 27.3.20)

There is an understandable amount of uncertainty for renters at the moment, in part caused by the current pandemic and, in part caused by the...

Sign up to our mailing list

Our mailing list is dedicated to professionals with an interest in our work.

Sign up