Clothed neighbours have sufficient propensity to be irritating, but they are nothing compared to naked ones. Nudity can be as much of an irritant as noise across the back garden fence.
Keen naturists tend to be evangelical about their need to bare all. Generally, the non-believers are a tolerant bunch. A recent NOP poll found that only 2 per cent of the British public thought people who sunbathe and swim naked were criminals, while 7 per cent thought they were "disgusting". A further 88 per cent used the word "harmless" to describe the activity. How much would these percentages swing if the pollsters asked: "Do you think your neighbours should have the right to wander about their back garden in the all-together?"
Naturists may find their hobby harmless and cleansing, but for many homeowners there is something very unsettling about the thought of a bunch of overweight, dimpled beardies playing nude volleyball next door, barely hidden by their hydrangeas.
The problem may be less a moral one than an aesthetic one. If your neighbour was David Beckham or Naomi Campbell, the nudity could be classed as a welcome diversion. But if every man's home and garden is his own property, surely he has the right to wander his grounds with his favourite possessions on display?
Michael Schwarz, a partner in the criminal department at Bindman & Partners, says generic nudity is not a criminal offence. To criminalise nakedness, you need to prove that the act breaks other rules, such as public order or harassment laws. He says: "You need to bolt it on to other offences. You can't force someone to wear clothes, but you can ask whether there has been a course of action that amounts to a criminal offence, such as harassment."
The first port of call for the offended neighbour is the police; he must try to get them to take the offence seriously. The case might then move to the magistrates' court, where the clothed neighbour must prove that the sight of their neighbour's body had caused real alarm, distress or harassment. Magistrates might grant an injunction limiting the naturism.
Mr Schwarz points out that the Human Rights Act has muddied the waters. There are two relevant articles: the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, or, in this case, the freedom to express yourself through nudity.
Both parties have claims under the two articles. The offended neighbour can claim the right to privacy by saying that while he is at home he should not be subjected to the sight of a naked neighbour. But his neighbour can claim the same right to privacy, and can also claim he is free to express himself. Mr Schwarz says: "He can say, 'I'm doing what I'm doing in my own property.' "
Mr Schwarz says that, as long as the naturism is in the neighbour's own property, the balance of the protection of the human rights arguably falls with the naked neighbour. But magistrates can go either way in the issue. "It depends on the merits of the individual case," he says.
If the thought of calling in the police and becoming embroiled in a complex Human Rights Act case daunts you, try the humiliation tactic. Take photos of your naked neighbour, blow them up, and ostentatiously use them to scare away pests from your vegetable patch. All but the most thick-skinned nature lover will get the message.
