A naturist from Macclesfield has seen his appeal against his conviction dismissed.

Neil Cox was arrested on the morning of August 22, 2023, when he walked past an off-duty police officer and two women on the Middlewood Way whilst 'entirely naked'.

He was subsequently charged with one offence of disorderly or threatening behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Following a trial at Crewe Magistrates Court, Cox was convicted of that offence on April 26, 2024, and ordered to pay a fine of £800.

He then lodged an appeal, with the latest hearing taking place at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on Wednesday, September 23.

Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mrs Justice Hill, was tasked with answering a series of questions relating to the interpretation of the offence, whether the correct principles were applied, and whether Cox's conviction was a 'proportionate interference'.

Asked if Cox's conduct was 'disorderly', 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.

"We quite understand why the isolation of the area and the early hour would have added to the concern of women walking alone.

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

Kirsty Brimelow, representing Cox, said that her client's conduct, while unconventional, was not disorderly.

"There was no breakdown, or anticipated breakdown, of order; he was walking quietly, minding his own business, and did not interact with the witnesses; he was quiet, calm, unprovocative and polite throughout, the antithesis of disorderly," said Dame Victoria, summarising Mrs Brimelow's argument.

Dame Victoria also assessed whether a conviction was 'necessary in a democratic society'.

She said: "The right of members of the public going about their ordinary business not to be confronted without warning by a naked stranger, in a place where they have no reason to expect it and no opportunity to avoid it, is a real one, and it was vindicated by the evidence of the two women in this case.

"The appellant had means of practising naturism (at the sympathetic business he intended to visit, for example) which did not involve confronting unwarned members of the public on an isolated path where they had no opportunity to avoid him.

"The submission that naturism has benefits for those who practise it and enjoys growing awareness is not a matter on which there was evidence before the Crown Court, and in any event does not bear on whether it was reasonable to practise it in this place at this time."

Concluding, Dame Victoria said: "Were we correct in dismissing the appellant's appeal against his conviction in the circumstances and context of this case? Yes.

"Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. We thank all counsel for their able assistance in this case."