The Sexual Offences Act 2003 extensively overhauled the law in England and Wales as it relates to all aspects of sexual behaviour.

However, as a result of a vigorous campaign waged by naturists, the new offence of "exposure"  (which replaces the former offence of "indecent exposure") has not significantly worsened the legal position for naturists.

Section 66 - Exposure

(1) A person commits an offence if-

• (a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
• (b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-

• (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
• (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.

In this case, "he" can mean either a man or a woman - the offence is "gender neutral".

A conviction for Exposure is possible even in cases where there is no actual victim and where no-one was caused "alarm or distress".

The SOA requires that cautions and convictions for Exposure result in Sex Offender registration where:

• a) the victim is under 18 and the offender is over 18 or
• b) the sentence is imprisonment or hospital detention or
• c) the sentence is community service of at least a year or
• e) the offender was under 18 and the sentence is over a year of prison.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 repeals the relevant sections of two, much older, statutes that related to "indecent exposure", namely the Vagrancy Act 1824 (c. 83) and Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (c. 89)

During the Parliamentary consideration of the Bill, naturists mounted a concerted campaign against the wording of the new 'Exposure' offence, which - although it was said to needed to deal with the problem of "flashers" - was so loosely worded that it could have criminalised all naturist activity. Government ministers repeatedly offered assurances that this was not the purpose of the new law and eventually amended its wording so as to offer greater protection for naturists.

As it is now worded, the offence of exposure would not cover being "reckless" as to whether alarm or distress is caused by intentionally exposing the genitals - as was originally proposed.

The amended wording suggests that the exposure would be criminal only if it were done in the knowledge or with the intention that somebody would see and be distressed.

Minister of State at the Home Office, Lord Falconer, explained that:

• “We are removing the recklessness requirement, so that the naturist will be guilty of an offence only if he knew or intended that what he did would cause alarm or distress. It will not be an offence because he knows…that there is a proportion of the population who.... find such actions disgusting. That would not, as a matter of law, make it a criminal offence, because he would not know in the circumstances that ‘alarm or distress’ would be caused—which is the wording of the offence. ‘Recklessness’ is about a risk. Knowing or intending that alarm will be caused is about actually knowing the facts."

The Solicitor-General, Harriet Harman said:

• "Hopefully, genuine naturist activity, whatever that might mean, does not include the intention to cause alarm or distress, so I hope that in dropping knowledge from the offence and leaving only intention, naturists will be reassured."

Given all this, naturists who are simply sunbathing, swimming or walking without clothes and who are being reasonably considerate, should not be subject to Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.