TYRONE WINSTON WARD

An exponent of barefoot walking, seen semi-naked in public woodland in Durham, is to challenge the validity of being charged with outraging public decency.

At least two witnesses were said to have complained about the appearance of Tyrone Winston Ward, having observed him walking naked from the waist down in Low Burnhall Wood, off South Road, on Sunday June 15, last year.

The 58-year-old defendant appeared at Durham Crown Court for a plea hearing accused of committing an act outraging public decency by behaving in an indecent manner, namely walking around a park wearing no lower clothing.

The charge was brought by the Crown, contrary to Common Law.

Tony Davis, representing Ward, asked that the charge should not be put to the defendant, stating: “We are to seek to apply to dismiss this matter.

“He does admit his lower clothing was removed, shoes included, him being an exponent of ‘bare-footing’, but we don’t admit it amounts to the charge.” Judge Tom Mitchell said: “Isn’t it a classic case that 12 people should decide?” Mr Davis said the evidence would revolve around the effect of his actions, “in the broadest sense”.

He added: “Although, there is a dispute as to what was on display, this isn’t a case of him simply wandering around without any clothing.

“If it’s considered a ‘lewd’ thing to do, why isn’t there a charge of ‘exposure’?” Charlie Thompson, prosecuting, said there would be a “high bar” to prove an exposure charge, as it would have to be determined that the defendant intended to cause, “alarm or distress”.

Mr Thompson said the Crown would say, “given the place he was, a public area, having revealed his penis in that area, would have been, ‘lewd, obscene or disgusting’.

“He would have been aware his penis was on display if he chose to dress in that way.” Judge Mitchell told Mr Davis if the defendant intended to seek to have the charge dismissed, an application would have to be made in writing to the court.

Mr Davis said there were a number of legal authorities to be reviewed in the light of another recent similar case.

Addressing the defendant, Judge Mitchell told him: “Mr Davis wants to apply to dismiss your case.

“You’ll be interested to see what that application produces, although it won’t be me dealing with that.” A provisional trial date was set for a two-day hearing, starting on August 3, but that is subject to the outcome of the application to dismiss issue, which is to be heard at a hearing at the court on February 11.

The defendant, of Denewell Avenue, Low Fell, Gateshead, was bailed on condition that he should not appear in a public place, “other than clothed”.