We’re here around the clock to help you take the first step toward resolving your legal issue. Reach out anytime for a free initial consultation.
Let us know a convenient time and we’ll get in touch—no waiting on hold.
The offence most people call indecent exposure was rewritten with effect from 29 September 2026. Section 113 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 substitutes a new subsection (1) into section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The intent limb widens from alarm or distress to alarm, distress or humiliation, and a second route is added for exposure done for sexual gratification, where the person need only be reckless about whether someone who sees it will be alarmed, distressed or humiliated. The maximum sentence does not move. What moves is how much conduct the offence reaches, and the offence was already one where a police caution, accepted in a custody suite to get home, can put a person on the sex offenders register.
This is a plain-English account of indecent exposure as the law applies to conduct before 29 September 2026, as it applies from that date, the sentence a court actually imposes, the notification consequences that most people learn about too late, and where a defence is actually fought.
The statutory name is simply exposure. "Indecent exposure" is the older phrase, from section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which spoke of wilfully, openly, lewdly and obscenely exposing the person, and "flashing" is what most people call it. That provision was replaced for England and Wales by section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force in May 2004 and has said the same thing ever since. The legal definition is now in one place.
For conduct before 29 September 2026, section 66(1) reads:
A person commits an offence if (a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and (b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
Two elements make up the criminal offence, and both are about the mind of the person accused. The exposure must be intentional, and there must be an intention that someone will see the genitals and be caused alarm or distress. Accidental exposure is not an offence. Exposure of anything other than the genitals is not this offence. Exposure with no intention that anyone should be alarmed or distressed by it is not this offence either, which is why naturism, a person changing on a beach, or somebody urinating behind a hedge has never fallen within section 66 on its own. Nobody need actually see the exposure, and nobody need actually be alarmed: the offence is complete on the act and the intention. It is an offence of specific intent, and there is no requirement that it happens in a public place: a person who exposes themselves at a window of their own home, intending a passer-by to see and be alarmed, commits it in a private setting as surely as in a park.
That second element is where almost every contested exposure case is decided. The act itself is rarely in dispute once a person has been identified. The question is what was in their mind, and it is a question the police put to a suspect in interview, usually within hours of arrest, before anyone has advised them that the answer is the whole case.
Section 113 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 substitutes a new subsection (1), and adds a subsection (1A). For conduct on or after 29 September 2026 the offence reads:
(1) A person (A) who intentionally exposes A's genitals commits an offence if (a) A intends that someone will see the genitals and be caused alarm, distress or humiliation, or (b) A exposes the genitals for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and does so (i) with the intention that someone will see them, and (ii) being reckless as to whether someone who sees them will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation.
(1A) But where A intends only that a particular person, or particular persons, will see A's genitals, A does not commit an offence by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) unless A is reckless as to whether that person, or at least one of those persons, will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation.
Three things follow.
Route (a) is the old offence with one word added. The prosecution must still prove an intention that someone will see the genitals and be caused something by it, and that something can now be humiliation as well as alarm or distress. The change closes a gap that has been argued in interview rooms for twenty years: the suspect who says the exposure was a joke, or a dare, or meant to embarrass rather than frighten. From 29 September 2026, an intention to embarrass is an intention to humiliate, and it is enough.
Route (b) is new. It applies where the exposure is done for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, with the intention that someone will see it. In that situation, the prosecution no longer has to prove that the person intended alarm, distress or humiliation. It has to prove that they were reckless as to whether a viewer would be caused it, which is a much lower bar. Recklessness in this sense means the person was aware of a risk that a viewer would be alarmed, distressed or humiliated and went ahead regardless, and it is a question a jury or bench will answer by looking at where, when and in front of whom the exposure happened.
This route is aimed at the case that the old wording struggled with: exposure in a public place, done for the person's own sexual purpose, where the person claims they neither wanted nor expected anyone to be upset. Under the old law that claim, if it could not be disproved, was a complete answer. Under the new law the question becomes whether they saw the risk.
Subsection (1A) narrows route (b) where the person intended only a particular person, or particular people, to see. In that case the recklessness must be as to that person or one of those people. It exists so that an exposure intended for a specific, willing viewer, where the person is not reckless about that viewer's reaction, does not become an offence because a stranger happened to see it. It is not a defence where the intended viewer was not willing, and it does not touch route (a) at all.
The maximum sentence stays where section 66(2) has always put it: 6 months' imprisonment or a fine on summary conviction, 2 years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment. The offence remains triable either way. It remains an offence about the exposure of the genitals, deliberately, and nothing else. Accidental exposure is still no offence. Exposure with no intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, and not for sexual gratification, is still no offence under section 66, whatever else it might be.
The commencement instrument, SI 2026/960, brought sections 113 to 115 into force on 29 September 2026 and makes no transitional provision for section 113. Conduct is judged against the offence as it stood on the day. An allegation about something that happened on 28 September 2026 is decided under the old wording, however long the investigation takes.
The rewriting of section 66 follows the first report of the Angiolini Inquiry, published in February 2024, which examined how indecent exposure allegations had been handled by the police and found that the offence had been treated as low level and its link to more serious sexual offending under-recognised. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 is part of the response. Whatever view is taken of the detail, the direction is clear: exposure allegations will be investigated more readily, charged more readily, and treated as sexual offending from the first report.
That matters for anyone accused, because it is the charging culture, not the statute, that decides what happens to a person in the months after an allegation. A suspect in 2026 should expect the allegation to be taken seriously, the interview to be conducted as a sexual offence interview, and the decision at the end of it to be made against a background of pressure not to let these cases go.
Most indecent exposure investigations begin with a report from a member of the public, sometimes from passers by who saw only part of what happened: a description, a location, a time, sometimes a partial vehicle registration or a photograph taken on a phone. The police then look for the person. Identification comes from CCTV, from a vehicle, from a further sighting, or from a stop in the area. The person is arrested or invited to a voluntary interview under caution, and interviewed about the act and, above all, about why they did it.
Two features of these investigations are worth knowing before that interview.
The identification is often the weakest point of the case. Exposure reports are frequently brief, at distance, and from a witness who was understandably not looking for long. Where the police case rests on a description and a later sighting, the identification evidence is where a defence starts, and it is examined before anything is said about the mental element.
The mental element is proved out of the suspect's own mouth more often than from anywhere else. A person who says in interview that they wanted a reaction, or that it was a joke, or that they knew someone might see, has answered the question the prosecution needs answered. The decision about whether to answer questions, give a prepared statement or say nothing is the most important decision in the case, and it is taken before the interview, not in it.
Indecent exposure is an offence where a police caution is commonly offered at the police station, particularly to a person with no previous record who admits the act. The offer is made in the custody suite, after hours of waiting, to somebody who wants to go home, and it is framed as the way to make the matter go away.
We set out what accepting a caution actually involves in our guide to police cautions and what accepting one costs. Three points are specific to exposure.
A caution requires an admission of guilt. It can only be given where the person admits the offence, and for exposure that means admitting the mental element: that the exposure was intended to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, or was for sexual gratification and reckless as to the effect. A person who does not accept that is not admitting the offence, and a caution is not available on that footing.
A caution for a sexual offence is disclosed. It is recorded on the Police National Computer, it appears on standard and enhanced DBS checks, and it has to be declared to a professional regulator. For a doctor, a teacher, a solicitor, or anyone whose work involves children or vulnerable adults, a caution for exposure is in practice the end of that work. That is the cost of the decision made in the custody suite.
A caution can bring the notification requirements with it. Section 80(1)(d) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes a person who is cautioned for a Schedule 3 offence subject to the notification requirements. For exposure, Schedule 3 sets conditions, covered below, and one of them is satisfied by the age of the victim alone. A caution for exposure where the person who saw it was under 18 places the person cautioned on the register for two years, under section 82.
There is a fourth point that is not about exposure. A caution is only available where there is enough evidence to charge. Where the evidence of identification or of the mental element does not meet that standard, the correct outcome is no further action, not a lesser disposal offered as a favour.
The statutory maximum is two years, and almost no case reaches it. The Sentencing Council's exposure guideline, in force since 1 April 2014, sets an offence range from a Band A fine to one year's custody, and most first offences are dealt with in the magistrates' court. The Crown Court is reached where the offending is serious, repeated, or sits alongside other charges.
The guideline works in two steps. The court first decides the category by asking whether there is raised harm (the victim was followed or pursued, or the offender masturbated) and raised culpability (specific or previous targeting of a vulnerable victim, abuse of trust, threats, or hostility toward a protected characteristic). Both together is category 1, with a starting point of 26 weeks' custody and a range of 12 weeks to a year. One or the other is category 2, starting at a high-level community order with a range from a medium-level community order to 26 weeks' custody. Neither is category 3, starting at a medium-level community order with a range from a Band A fine to a high-level community order.
The court then adjusts within the range. The statutory aggravating factors are previous convictions, an offence committed on bail, and, from 29 June 2026, grooming of a person under 18. The other aggravating factors listed are the location and timing of the offence, steps taken to prevent the victim reporting it, offending on licence or in breach of a court order, intoxication, and the presence of others, especially children. Repeat offenders and persistent offending move a case up the range faster than any single feature.
The mitigating factors are the ones a properly prepared sentence hearing puts in front of the court: no previous convictions, genuine remorse, positive character, age and lack of maturity for a person aged 18 to 25, a mental health condition or learning disability, steps already taken to address the behaviour, and prospects in work or education. In a category 3 case those factors are the difference between a community order and a fine, and, as the next section explains, between the register and no register.
The guideline predates the 2026 amendment and will be applied to the new offence until it is revised. Its harm and culpability factors were written for the old wording, so a case brought under the new sexual gratification route will be placed by analogy rather than by a factor written for it. That is an argument to be made at sentence, not assumed.
The notification requirements in Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the mechanism behind what is called the sex offenders register, are triggered by a conviction, caution or finding for an offence listed in Schedule 3. Exposure is listed, at paragraph 33, subject to conditions.
For a person aged 18 or over at the time of the offence, exposure triggers notification where either the victim was under 18, or the person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, detained in a hospital, or made the subject of a community sentence of at least 12 months. For a person under 18 at the time, it triggers notification only where they are sentenced to at least 12 months' imprisonment.
So the register does not follow automatically from every exposure conviction. A fine, a conditional discharge, or a community order of under 12 months, for an offence where the person who saw the exposure was an adult, does not trigger Part 2. A suspended sentence needs specific advice, because the Sentencing Code treats a suspended sentence as a sentence of imprisonment for most purposes.
Where notification is triggered, the period under section 82 depends on the disposal: two years for a caution, seven years for a custodial sentence of six months or less, ten years for a sentence of more than six months and less than 30 months, five years for a community sentence or other non-custodial disposal that qualifies. Those periods are halved for a person under 18.
This is the reason the sentence hearing in an indecent exposure case is not a formality. A person convicted and given a community order of 12 months is on the register for five years; the same person given one of 11 months is not on it at all. A short prison sentence, even one that is suspended, may bring seven years of notification with it. Each of those outcomes is argued for, and the guideline gives the court the room to reach any of them in a category 2 or 3 case.
We cover the orders that sit alongside notification separately: sexual harm prevention orders, which can follow a conviction or caution for a Schedule 3 offence, and sexual risk orders, which need no conviction at all.
Not every indecent exposure allegation is charged under section 66, and the choice of charge is worth watching, because the consequences differ sharply.
Outraging public decency is a common law offence, triable either way, with no statutory maximum on indictment. It requires an act of a lewd, obscene or disgusting character, in a place where at least two people were able to see it. It does not require any intention to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, and it does not require a sexual purpose. It is not listed in Schedule 3 in its own right, so it does not carry the notification requirements, which is one reason the prosecution's choice between section 66 and outraging public decency can matter more than the sentence.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 covers threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. It is summary only and carries a fine. It is the charge that historically caught public urination and drunken behaviour that involved some exposure, and it is not a sexual offence.
Where the evidence of the section 66 mental element is thin, and the conduct is admitted, the argument about which of these three offences fits the facts is a pre-charge argument, made to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service before the charging decision is taken. It is far harder to move a case between offences after charge.
Indecent exposure cases turn on a short list of questions, and every one of them is best addressed before the police decide what to do.
Every one of these is a question of evidence and law, and a suspect answering police questions without advice is likely to resolve the third and fourth against themselves without knowing it.
We act for people accused of indecent exposure at the point where the outcome is still open: before the interview, before the charging decision, and before any caution has been accepted. The work is pre-charge representation, and in exposure cases it has a particular shape.
It begins with disclosure: what the police actually have, as opposed to what the arrest suggests they have. It continues with the interview decision, taken with that disclosure in view. Where the identification is weak, or the mental element is not made out on the evidence, we put that to the officer in the case and to the CPS in writing before the charging decision, with the material that supports it. We do not wait for the decision and then react to it. Where a caution is being offered, we advise on what it discloses, whether the evidence supports it, and whether the correct outcome is no further action.
Where a charge has already been brought, the same analysis is put to the prosecution to seek a review of the charging decision and, where the evidence does not support the charge, a discontinuance, rather than waiting for a trial to reach the same conclusion at far greater cost. Where the case proceeds, the sentence hearing is prepared with the Schedule 3 thresholds in view. This is part of our wider sexual offences defence practice.
These are allegations that carry a stigma out of all proportion to the maximum sentence, and the people who face them are often professionals, parents and people with no previous contact with the police. Discretion is built in. Nothing about a matter leaves this firm.
We offer confidential consultations, in person at our London offices or remotely by secure call. Initial enquiries are handled discreetly and quickly.
If you have been arrested, invited to an interview, or offered a caution for exposure, speak to us before you answer any question or sign anything. The decision that decides the case is usually the first one.
In England and Wales the offence is called exposure and is in section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. For conduct before 29 September 2026 it requires an intentional exposure of the genitals with the intention that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. From 29 September 2026 the intention can also be to cause humiliation, and a second route covers exposure for sexual gratification where the person is reckless as to whether a viewer will be alarmed, distressed or humiliated.
Section 113 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 substitutes a new section 66(1). Humiliation is added to alarm and distress, and a new route (b) catches exposure for the purpose of sexual gratification, done with intent that someone sees it, where the person is reckless about the effect on a viewer. A new subsection (1A) narrows route (b) where the person intended only a particular person to see. The commencement is under SI 2026/960.
Yes. Section 66 sits in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is investigated and charged as a sexual offence, and it is listed in Schedule 3 to the Act, which means a conviction or caution can lead to the notification requirements where the Schedule 3 conditions are met.
Under section 66(2), up to 6 months' imprisonment or a fine on summary conviction, and up to 2 years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 does not change the sentence.
Not automatically. For an adult, a conviction or caution for exposure triggers the notification requirements where the victim was under 18, or where the sentence is imprisonment, a hospital order, or a community sentence of at least 12 months. A fine or a shorter community order, for an offence where the viewer was an adult, does not.
A caution is a route into the notification requirements under section 80(1)(d), where the Schedule 3 conditions are met. For exposure, that means a caution triggers notification where the person who saw the exposure was under 18. The notification period for a caution is two years. Separately, any caution for exposure is recorded on the Police National Computer and disclosed on DBS checks.
No. SI 2026/960 makes no transitional provision for section 113, and conduct is judged against the offence as it stood on the date it occurred. An allegation about conduct before 29 September 2026 is decided under the old wording, which required an intention to cause alarm or distress.
Yes. Section 66 has no public place requirement. What matters is an intentional exposure of the genitals with the intention that someone sees it and is caused alarm, distress or humiliation, or, from 29 September 2026, for sexual gratification and reckless as to the effect. Exposure at a window, in a doorway or in a garden that is overlooked can meet the test. Exposure inside a home that nobody was intended to see does not.
Under the Sentencing Council guideline, previous convictions, offending on bail, the location and timing of the offence, steps to prevent the victim reporting, intoxication and the presence of others, especially children, aggravate the sentence. No previous convictions, remorse, positive character, a mental health condition or learning disability, and steps taken to address the behaviour mitigate it. Repeat offending is the factor that moves a case up the range fastest.
Not under section 66 on its own. The offence requires an intentional exposure with an intention to cause alarm, distress or humiliation, or a sexual purpose with recklessness as to the effect. Urinating in public without either is not exposure, although it can be charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 or as outraging public decency depending on the circumstances.
Not without advice. A caution requires an admission of the offence, including the mental element, and it is disclosed on DBS checks and to regulators for the rest of a career. Where the evidence does not meet the standard for a charge, the correct outcome is no further action, and that is argued for before anything is signed.
Lex Vindico Group is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We represent individuals nationally across England and Wales in criminal, regulatory, and parallel-proceedings defence at every stage, and most decisively, at the pre-charge stage.
This article is written by Akram Mula, LLM, Solicitor Advocate and CPS-approved Prosecutor, founder of Lex Vindico Group. It is general legal information about the exposure offence and the changes made to it by the Crime and Policing Act 2026, not legal advice on any specific case. For advice on your specific circumstances, contact our team directly.
Tell us what has happened and we will respond quickly and in confidence.
.svg)
We’re proud to be recognised by the UK’s leading legal and professional bodies. With decades of experience across criminal defence, regulatory law, and litigation, our clients trust our lawyers to deliver results with discretion, precision, and integrity.
Your next step could make all the difference. Speak to our expert legal team now and protect your future.