Man Not Guilty of Exposure Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court 2024

Our Client was charged with exposure, contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It was alleged that our Client had exited a hotel where he was staying and had exposed his penis to two strangers who were sitting at a bus stop opposite, intending to thereby cause those strangers alarm or distress.

Our client's instructions were that he did not remember the incident, as he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and it had occurred during a period in 2023 when he had not been taking his medication. He was seriously unwell at the time, and, upon his arrest, was immediately sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983. Our client had no previous convictions for sexual offences, and stated that, whilst he may indeed have exposed his penis, it was at a time where he was hallucinating and simply did not know what he was doing.

Paralegal Maeve Carroll meticulously assessed the Crown’s case and requested disclosure of relevant material which was subjected to fierce scrutiny. It became clear that the Crown were in possession of Body Worn Video footage of our client’s arrest, which we obtained; this footage revealed that our client seemed to have been hallucinating at the time and was under the delusion that the two strangers had asked him to expose his penis. The offence of exposure under section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires a person to not only expose themselves, but to do so with the intention to cause alarm or distress. The defence therefore argued that our client’s state of the mind was such that he did not have any such intention.

On this basis, Maeve Carroll instructed a psychiatrist to assess our client and prepare an expert report for trial. The expert was also asked to review the Body Worn Video footage to observe our client’s mental condition at the time of the offence. The psychiatric report concluded that, as a result of not taking his medication, our client may well have exposed his penis without the necessary intention to cause alarm or distress.

Senior solicitor Sanjay Cholera was instructed to represent the client at trial. Prior to the hearing, the Crown were asked to review the case in light of the defence’s psychiatric report. However, the Crown stated that they nonetheless wished to proceed to trial. The Crown put forward their case, including calling the Complainants to give evidence. At the close of the Crown’s case, Sanjay Cholera drew the Court’s attention to the psychiatric report, and submitted that the Crown had failed to prove that our client had intended to cause alarm or distress. The District Judge at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court agreed with the defence in reliance upon the psychiatric report, and consequently found our client not guilty of the offence. Our client was thus acquitted in full.