A naturist who claimed judges in the north might be biased against his “lifestyle” will have his legal challenge heard in Manchester, after a High Court judge rejected his plea for it to be moved to London.
Neil Cox is challenging Chester Crown Court’s dismissal of his appeal against a public order offence conviction.
His lawyers had argued that a London hearing would be quicker and less susceptible to unconscious biases.
In a judgment published on Tuesday, Mrs Justice Hill 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.”
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.”
Mr Cox was convicted at Crewe Magistrates Court over the public order offence, committed in Macclesfield, Cheshire, in August 2023.
In written submissions, his lawyers also argued that 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 have now 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.”
