Thus in Sedley's case (1675) Strange 168, 1 Sid 168, the defendant pleaded guilty to outraging
public decency where he had appeared naked on the balcony of a house and had urinated on several people present.
Not exact matches
In that case,
where the defendants had been convicted on two counts of conspiracy to corrupt
public morals and conspiracy to outrage
public decency in respect of the publication of a magazine which contained advertisements inviting readers to engage in homosexual acts, the House of Lords was split about whether a common law offence of conspiracy to outrage
public decency existed.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the law relating to the offence of outraging
public decency had developed in such a way that the offence was confined to those instances
where the necessary lewd act had been witnessed by at least one person, and the
public nature of the offence was only satisfied if, in addition, at least one other person either had or could have seen the act.
The
public element in the offence was satisfied if the act was done
where people were present and the nature of what was being done was capable of being seen; the principle was that the
public were to be protected from obscene or disgusting acts which were of a nature that outraged
public decency and which were capable of being seen in
public.
He submitted that the offence of outraging
public decency, as developed by 19th century authorities, was confined to instances
where a lewd act had been witnessed by a least one person.