A High Court judge has ruled that a legal challenge from a naturist, who claimed judges in northern England might harbour unconscious biases against his lifestyle, will be heard in Manchester, rejecting his request to move the case to London.
The Core of the Legal Argument
Neil Cox is challenging Chester Crown Court's dismissal of his appeal against a conviction for a public order offence. The incident occurred in Macclesfield, Cheshire, in August 2023, with the initial conviction handed down at Crewe Magistrates' Court.
Mr Cox's legal team had vigorously argued for the case to be transferred to the capital. They submitted that a London hearing would not only be quicker but also less susceptible to what they termed "unconscious biases" against the naturist lifestyle, which is central to the case.
Judge Dismisses Claims of Regional Bias
In a judgment published on Tuesday 18th November 2025, Mrs Justice Hill addressed these concerns directly. She stated that the lawyers had suggested naturism could provoke both conscious and unconscious biases, and that hearing the matter in London would be less likely to provoke these against their client.
However, Mrs Justice Hill was not persuaded. She emphasised that the Civil Justice Centre in Manchester is one of the largest court centres in the UK, and its judges and staff are well accustomed to handling sensitive situations arising from public attendance.
"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," the judge declared, adding that many judges of the Administrative Court sit in both locations.
Precedent Argument Falls Flat
Another strand of the defence's argument pointed to a single previous case concerning public naturism, which was dealt with in London, thereby giving that court specific experience. Mrs Justice Hill countered this, noting that the cited case was nearly 12 years old and both judges involved have since retired.
Concluding her judgment, Mrs Justice Hill ordered the transfer of the claim to the northern region for administration and determination at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre, ensuring the case will be resolved closer to where the original offence took place.
