PoCA and Naturism PDF Print

Naturists can fall foul of the Protection of Children Act 1978 in various ways.

For example, one person was successfully prosecuted for taking indecent photographs of a child at a naturist swim.

In court, it was made clear that neither the child nor the child's parents were aware of the photographer's intentions (which he admitted were nothing to do with naturism at all).

"Indecency" and Context

A photograph of a child in a naturist situation may appear delightful to another naturist, grossly offensive to a particularly prudish person. If that person is a police officer, prosecutor, social worker, employer or journalist, this could create serious problems for the owner of the photograph. It has been known for a social worker to regard photographs of a fully clothed child as "indecent" because the child was alleged to be in a suspicious pose and with a provocative expression, so nudity in itself is not necessarily a factor - the judgement of whether or not an image is "indecent" is ultimately subjective and decided by the jury or bench.

Cautions

Home Office figures on the application of PoCA and related legislation show that a substantial number of people accept cautions for production and possession of indecent images of children. Accepting a caution avoids the publicity of a trial, but does not mean being "let off". Anyone cautioned for an offence under these Acts should expect to be placed on the Sex Offenders' Register for several years, and will have major difficulties in any employment involving children. Being cautioned means having a criminal record.

While naturists should be concerned and cautious, the situation is not entirely gloomy. In at least one prosecution for possession of indecent photographs, an extensive collection of naturist material has been specifically excluded from consideration (R v Stanley, 1997), showing that many non-naturists are aware of the distinction between naturism and indecency.
 
< Prev
[ Back ]