Naked rambler: why have we spent £300,000 imprisoning this harmless eccentric?

[Davin]

Stephen Gough has spent nine years in prison for refusing to wear clothes. But nobody else in the country is subject to the same conditions as him

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...eccentric.html

[Mosquito_Bait]

Great Editorial! Here's the text.

Naked rambler: why have we spent £300,000 imprisoning this harmless eccentric?

Stephen Gough has spent nine years in prison for refusing to wear clothes. But nobody else in the country is subject to the same conditions as him

By Matthew Scott
1:35PM BST 10 Jun 2015

My client Stephen Gough, a former Royal Marine better known as the Naked Rambler, has now been in prison, largely in a segregation unit, for the best part of nine years.

Once the remission rules are taken into account, that is the equivalent of a sentence of nearly 18 years. It is about what you would expect to get if you committed a rape of an eight year old child. By my very rough calculations the cost of imprisoning him, ignoring altogether legal and police costs, has been about £330,000. His offence has been that he won't wear clothes in public.

Who is being the most ridiculous here: Mr Gough, or the Crown Prosecution Service?

It is seldom advisable for barristers to make any public comment on the rightness of a client's cause. If it were done regularly it would become expected, and a barrister's failure to voice an opinion in support of his client would then be taken as a lack of enthusiasm. Only because we are not expected to reveal our opinions can we represent the bad just as strongly as the good.

So it is with considerable hesitation that I am moved to comment on the Court of Appeal's decision yesterday. The Court rejected Gough's appeal against his latest conviction - a two and a half year sentence for breaching an anti-social behaviour order, or Asbo, which required him to wear at least a loincloth whenever he is in a public place. His crime was committed when he emerged from prison naked, whereupon he was immediately greeted by two police officers charged with the faintly absurd task of either making him wear trousers or arresting him.

Of the judgment itself there is little to be said. There was an irony in the fact that even as Lady Justice Rafferty ruled that the Crown Court judge had been correct to exclude a naked man from participation in a Crown Court trial, a live video of that same naked man sitting behind a desk in Winchester Prison was being prominently displayed in the Court of Appeal. At one point he even leant back in his chair, unwittingly displaying for an illicit moment a flash of the organs that the law has expended so much money, court room time, prison space and legal brainpower in keeping concealed.

The problem is not with the court that upheld his conviction and sentence yesterday. It is with an Asbo that turns an eccentric into a criminal, and a prosecution system that could easily turn a blind eye, but which prefers instead to try to break the will of a harmless and astonishingly courageous man.

Remember: it is not, in itself, unlawful to go naked in public. It is an offence under section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to expose one's genitals with intent that someone should thereby be caused “alarm or distress" – but nobody has ever suggested that Mr Gough had such an intent.
It can be an offence to cause a public nuisance and to “harm the morals of the public or their comfort, or obstruct the public in the enjoyment of their rights”. But as an earlier and more successful nudist, Vincent Bethell, showed in 2001, juries are reluctant to find that merely being naked in the street does anything of the sort.

Mr Gough could have been charged with the same offence but, as Hampshire prosecutors no doubt realised, that would have required them to persuade a jury that his nakedness had “harmed the morals of the public.” Since there was no evidence that it had done so – although some people objected to the sight of him wandering around the streets of Eastleigh – a jury would have been likely to acquit. They could have achieved and did secure a few convictions in the Magistrates' Courts for minor public order offences, but these were too trivial in themselves to put him behind bars.

So the only way that Mr Gough could be reliably jugged was to tailor him a bespoke Asbo, making it a criminal offence for him to display his genitals or buttocks in public. As far as I am aware, nobody else in the country is subject to a similar order.

The result is that one of the very few people in the country who actually wants to wander naked around the highways and byways of Hampshire is also the only man in the country who commits a crime by doing so.

It is extremely hard to come up with a defence to breaching an Asbo. In the past, Mr Gough has been represented by very able counsel who have struggled, with no success, to persuade judges that it breaches his human rights. In the latest prosecution he was representing himself in the Crown Court and so, once the judge forbade him to come into court undressed, he made literally no arguments at all. It was that ruling that he was challenging, unsuccessfully, on appeal. But even if he had been present to argue his case in court, the jury would not have been allowed to decide whether his nakedness should be treated as criminal; their only job was to say whether or not the Asbo had been breached.

He has now been in prison for the best part of 9 years. And for what?
He is emphatically not a sexual predator. He does not open up his grubby raincoat to terrify schoolgirls. He does not even possess a grubby raincoat, or indeed any other clothing apart from footwear (which he wears because walking barefoot becomes painful).

He is not violent, he is not dangerous and he is not dishonest. He is not a murderer or or a terrorist. He is not a drug dealer and he has never turned his house into a cannabis farm. He is not a computer or a phone hacker and does not download indecent images of children. He has never tried to live off immoral earnings or run a brothel. He has never tried to smuggle drugs, guns or antiquities. He does not pervert the course of justice or commit perjury. He does not commit bribery or blackmail. He has never attempted to intimidate witnesses or pervert the course of justice.

He does not ask anyone to look at him but nor does he hide menacingly in bushes. Although he draws attention to himself in the most effective way imaginable, he does so only because he wants to be ignored.

So what on earth is the justification for making him live his life behind bars?

It is quite true that opinions differ. There are those who quite sincerely take the view that imprisoning Mr Gough indefinitely is a price worth paying to keep his private parts private.

Others think that if ever there was a case in which the law makes itself look like an ***, or perhaps a stubborn and biting mule, this is it.

So here is my solution. It might actually help both the CPS and Mr Gough out of the hole that they have dug for themselves.

Next time Mr Gough is released from prison, he may well continue to flout the Asbo.

Of course I would prefer it if he were allowed to go free.

But if he is arrested, instead of trying him for the technical offence of breaching the Asbo, which allows of no real argument, charge him with creating a public nuisance.

If there are witnesses who are upset, offended or fearful for their children's welfare, let them come to court and say so. If such people exist, they have a right to be heard.

But vary the Asbo to let Mr Gough explain, in the witness box, dressed or undressed as he wishes, why he should be left to live his life as he wishes.
That would allow a jury of Hampshire men and women to decide once and for all whether he should be treated as a criminal who must stay in prison until he dies or conforms, or as a harmless eccentric who poses no threat to anyone.

Matthew Scott is a criminal barrister at Pump Court Chambers. He writes at Barrister Blogger and tweets @Barristerblog.

[Guest]

It's hard for me to feel too much pity for him. While I think the government has gone to excessive lengths regarding the punishments levied on him, I also see their point. He has a problem that exceeds a reasonable protest. If he wanted to live nude, there are many places he could go and he could surely gain the support of fellow like minded people so he would never have to leave his protected world. But that's not good enough for him...he has to bend everyone's will to match his personal wants. This is not how a society functions. Frankly, after following his exploits for several years, he should be placed in a psychiatric facility, not a jail.

[Mosquito_Bait]

^^ But is anyone genuinely offended by Mr. Gough's nudity to the extent that they wish to see him jailed?

...

So here is my solution. It might actually help both the CPS and Mr Gough out of the hole that they have dug for themselves.

Next time Mr Gough is released from prison, he may well continue to flout the Asbo.

Of course I would prefer it if he were allowed to go free.

But if he is arrested, instead of trying him for the technical offence of breaching the Asbo, which allows of no real argument, charge him with creating a public nuisance.

If there are witnesses who are upset, offended or fearful for their children's welfare, let them come to court and say so. If such people exist, they have a right to be heard.

...

[Naturist Mark]

But that's not good enough for him...he has to bend everyone's will to match his personal wants. This is not how a society functions.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

Frankly, after following his exploits for several years, he should be placed in a psychiatric facility, not a jail.

Perhaps you are right, anyone who stands on principal, defying authority despite the certainty of reprisal, must be out of their minds. But of course we sane people depend on those people for every step of progress ever made. Those insane people took the punishment for disturbing the status quo, we reaped the rewards.

I'm not saying Gough is one of the great heroes of our age. He is no Gandhi, King or Mandela. But just maybe he is a giver of light. He is illuminating the desperate measures those in authority will go to eliminate harmless eccentricity, to fence in freedom to within the permitted parameters even when there is no compelling purpose in doing so.

Here is a man who has never harmed anyone, has not even broken the law, only convention. He has been imprisoned without trial by use of special orders that only apply to him, and that are not subject to the normal system of justice. Authority is desperate to make him comply without ever risking due process that could exonerate him (as it has done for others like Vincent Bethell).

If you are honest, even if you believe Stephen Gough is nutty to not wear clothes when others demand he do so, you must admit that the lengths those in authority have been willing to go to end his harmless eccentricity is a compelling lesson about the nature of authority in a free society.

[Mosquito_Bait]

^^ Bravo!

Mark, I wish I could pose an argument as eloquently as you.

[Guest]

There is no question that I agree with his basic premise that there is nothing to fear from the nude human form in any public setting. I would love to be able to wake up in the morning and not have to worry about putting anything on to go outside for any endeavor. I just don't see his actions trying to be representative of the larger association of naturists above his own desire. From my knowledge, no naturist organization has come out in full, public support of his actions...why is that? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

From what I have seen, and read about this guy, he has a fundamental inability to function as part of a greater society. He has no respect for authority which is an essential part of being part of a society...any society.

[Mosquito_Bait]

The thing that really gets me about this is the use of government to enforce a dress code. If you look to the middle east, you can see how absurd this can be.

[Guest]

The thing that really gets me about this is the use of government to enforce a dress code. If you look to the middle east, you can see how absurd this can be.

While I can't argue the merits of a government sponsored dress code, I completely agree with the far reaching depths that any government sponsored influence can have on every aspect of our lives...hell hath no fury like a government, that with well meaning intentions and an insatiable thirst for money and power, like a government spurned! it always leads exponentially to more harm, than good....especially when it focuses its actions on an individual!

[nudeyooper]

It often takes years if not decades for society to change its view of what is acceptable or normal. Stephen Gough is considered an eccentric, not normal, yet all of us have eccentricities of one kind or another. Many are considered harmless, but society still has not accepted our desires to live naturally, or to say it more directly clothes free or naked. I believe that is because nudity is equated with sex. Though most of us enjoy sexual activity, it is considered to be a private matter and not to be engaged in public. Therefore, to have nudity in everyday places, not just behind the walls of our homes or in places set aside for us, we have to work to break this correlation. It would be a plus when searching on line for nude beach videos we were guided to sites that have people on the beach doing what any beach goer would be doing, playing in the water and sand and sunbathing. We instead get pornographic sites that focus on women, especially their breasts and vaginal areas. Only a few times will a naked male be shown and more times than not he is engaged in sexual activity.

Events like the naked bike rides are becoming more acceptable, but I believe this kind of activity would be more effective if it occurred more frequently in more locations. I also believe that the body painting and other decorations at this kind of event does not project the natural image and may not advance the cause for acceptance. How that acceptance will come about is anybody's guess. A beach would be a place where nudity could be considered natural. We all know how awful wet bathing suits can feel, and most of us do not want tan lines. What would happen if instead of a naked bike ride, which is considered a protest, a naked beach day would be organized? If hundreds of people were to participate, would they all be arrested or issued citations? If the bike rides are an indication, the answer would be no.

So Stephen Gouph, the eccentric that he is, is acting on his beliefs. He is not the only one who believes that we have the right to live without clothing, but it will take more of us acting in an organized manner to change this from being one eccentric's cause to something that could be considered normal.

[jasenj]

A beach would be a place where nudity could be considered natural. We all know how awful wet bathing suits can feel, and most of us do not want tan lines. What would happen if instead of a naked bike ride, which is considered a protest, a naked beach day would be organized? If hundreds of people were to participate, would they all be arrested or issued citations? If the bike rides are an indication, the answer would be no.

A thousand times this. There are various "top-free equality" and nude protests. Yet they are never (extremely rarely) at a place where women/people would WANT to be topless/nude. I doubt anyone has any interest in lounging around nude in the middle of downtown, but pick a beach to do a "nude in" or "boob in" and you might actually get people who are there to join in. Carry some signs, paint slogans on bodies, etc. to make it political speech.

As for Stephen Gough. I completely agree that he is an arrogant, selfish pain in the ***. But society needs those. Government needs to be reminded that it is not the absolute master of the citizenry. Society must allow offensive people to exist & be offensive; otherwise we are not "free", we are just a bunch of cattle.

[FireProf]

Stephen Gough is considered many things by many people and even ... nudists. But if you read and understand what Naturist Mark has written ... there have been a great many Stephen Gough's before Stephen Gough and we ALL reap the benefit of their eccentric behavior or felt that those nudists before us all, needed to be in psychiatric wards ... and we ALL have them to thank for what we have today.

In my opinion ... Stephen Gough has NEVER said he speaks for anyone but himself. He's never said he was a nudist and he was doing this for all nudists. NUDISTS have stated those things on message boards, such as this one, and it is unsubstantiated info, rumor and speculation.

You don't have to get behind him if you chose not to. Most nudists agree with his principles and philosophy. His logic isn't meshing with the authorities but I will say this ... if he were successful in changing laws pertaining to simple nudity in public, each and every nudist on this site and every other site would change their tune and sing his praises.