header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 October 2007 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7292 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Unseen outrage

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Should the offence of outraging public decency be abolished? Neil Parpworth reports

In its report Conspiracy and Criminal Law Reform (1976), Law Com No 76, the Law Commission recommended that the common law offence of outraging public decency be abolished. Although this view was expressed more than 30 years ago, the offence remains and outraging public decency has continued to attract criticism in the years that have followed.
In a comment on R (Rose) v DPP [2006] EWHC 852 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 225 (Mar), Professor Ormerod opined that the offence “remains as unsatisfactorily defined as most of the other common law offences” (see [2006] Crim LR 993). Criticisms have also been levelled at the way in which the offence may be used by prosecutors to preclude the availability of statutory defences.

With these criticisms in mind, the latest in a long line of cases, R v Hamilton [2007] EWCA Crim 2026, [2007] All ER (D) 99 (Aug), merits consideration to determine what light it throws, if any, on the elements of the offence of outraging

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll