Nudist loses High Court fight after walking naked past police officer

The High Court has thrown out an appeal brought by a naturist who was arrested after he walked naked past an off-duty police officer.

Neil Cox was previously fined £800 after being convicted at Crewe Magistrates’ Court of threatening or disorderly behaviour.

The charge stemmed from a walk that he took along Middlewood Way, near Macclesfield, on 22 August 2023.

A subsequent appeal against that conviction was thrown out at Chester Crown Court in November 2024.

Cox then mounted a further challenge at the High Court, which was also dismissed in a judgment handed down on Wednesday.

Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting alongside Mrs Justice Hill at the High Court in Manchester, said that Cox was waiting for a shop to open at roughly 6.30am when he passed Detective Chief Inspector Mark Whittaker and then two women.

At the time, he wore only a small shoulder bag containing a copy of naturism guidance issued by the College of Policing, as well as his mobile phone.

The judge said the women were “confused and scared” and “angry and concerned” about Cox’s lack of clothes.

Mr Whittaker, who was out for a morning run, carried on past Cox after “making his disapproval known” but then turned round to arrest him.

Dame Victoria said that Cox did not say anything to the women or interact in any way and “behaved in a respectful, calm manner” during his arrest, while Mr Whittaker “was not prepared to look at the guidance”.

At a hearing in April, Cox’s lawyers argued the previous judge at Chester Crown Court was wrong to find his behaviour was disorderly.

Rejecting that argument, Dame Victoria said: “To walk completely naked on a quiet path used at that hour by people walking alone to work, who had no reason to expect to encounter him, no opportunity to avoid him and no-one to turn to, was conduct the court was plainly entitled to characterise as disorderly in the ordinary sense of that word.”

She added: “Far from being a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal could have reached, it is difficult to see how the court could have decided otherwise.”