Innes Miller, a 33-year-old civil engineering student, had sex on the ferris wheel at Download Festival in Leicestershire, UK, and found out he’d gone viral when his boss called. The incident took place earlier this summer, just before Guns ‘n’ Roses performed.
The Witness Who Called the Police
Sally Bedford, the prosecutor, said that the police learned about what happened when a woman on the ferris wheel with her young autistic son noticed the couple’s intimate act and reported it. The woman was not prosecuted, while Miller was, and he pleaded guilty to all charges.
Miller’s Lawyer’s Case
The attorney for Miller maintained that there was no ill will meant to offend public sensibilities. Instead, he attributed the incident to Miller having consumed alcohol. The lawyer further disclosed that Miller learned of the matter only after his boss called him to relay the news, “You’re all over the internet.”.
This was punishment enough for Miller, according to the lawyer, since the man is ashamed and embarrassed.
The Court’s Response
Anne Cowan, who sits on the bench, did not agree. She argued that the online video is unrelated to any court matter. The punishment handed down to Miller included a fine of £80, an order to pay £85 in court costs, and a £32 victim surcharge.
What the Witness Said
Bedford spoke about the negative effect on those who witnessed it. “[The witness] said she was mortified,” said Bedford. “She said her son was in shock and since the incident, her son’s behaviour has changed.”
The Legal Context
The United Kingdom does not usually make it against the law to be naked with another person in public. What is against the law, though, is being naked in public in a way that might upset others, and that is covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Those caught doing this can be fined up to £5,000, or put in prison for up to six months.
Comparing the Charges
| Charge | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Outraging public decency | Miller pleaded guilty |
| Indecent exposure | Not specified in the case |
| Victim surcharge | £32 |
The Fine Breakdown
- Fined £80
- Court costs of £85
- Victim surcharge of £32
Our View
A lawyer’s claim that shame alone serves as adequate punishment holds some weight. Miller confessed to wrongdoing, forfeited his privacy, and now bears a public record. The fine may be modest, but the spectacle itself functions as the real penalty.
Cowan’s dismissal of the online video as irrelevant to the courts is telling. The law punishes conduct, not publicity. The witness’s son’s changed behaviour is the human cost, and Bedford’s account of it makes the case more than a joke.
The case before the court involved a mother who was mortified and a child who was shocked. The viral footage was treated by the judge as a sideshow, and the fine handed down was light.