Naturist's northern judge 'bias' fears dismissed

The Civil Justice Centre in Manchester is one of the largest court centres in the UK, Mrs Justice Hill said.

A naturist who claimed judges in the north of England may be more biased against his "lifestyle" will have his legal challenge heard in Manchester after failing to convince a High Court judge it should be held in London.

Neil Cox has launched a challenge against Chester Crown Court's decision to dismiss his appeal against a conviction for a public order offence committed in Macclesfield, Cheshire, in August 2023.

He filed the claim in London, with his lawyers arguing a hearing in the capital would be heard more quickly and would be less likely to tap into unconscious biases.

In a judgment published earlier, Mrs Justice Hill said there was "no proper basis" for his suggestions.

She said: "Counsel submit that naturism, which is at the heart of this case, can evoke both conscious and unconscious biases.

"It is said that hearing the matter in London may be less likely to provoke those against the appellant's lifestyle than may occur if his case is heard in a smaller court centre/jurisdiction.

"The appellant is also said to have a concern that transferring the case to Manchester may result in a greater likelihood of unconscious bias impacting the impartiality of the outcome."

'No proper basis'

She added: "I am not persuaded by these arguments. The Civil Justice Centre in Manchester is one of the largest court centres in the UK.

"Its judges and staff are well used to dealing with any sensitive situations that arise as a result of public attendance at hearings.

"There is no proper basis for suggesting that a judge sitting in the Administrative Court in Manchester is more likely to have unconscious bias against naturists than a judge sitting in the Administrative Court in London. Many judges of the Administrative Court sit in both courts."

Cox was convicted at Crewe Magistrates Court of the offence.

In written submissions, his lawyers also argued there has been only one other case raising issues around public naturism, and that was dealt with in London, providing that court with experience of dealing with the issue.

But the judge disagreed, saying the previous case was almost 12 years old and both judges involved had since retired.

Mrs Justice Hill said: "I have concluded that this claim should be transferred to the northern region for administration and determination at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre."