Katie Hopkins' confirmation that she will streak naked through the streets of London with a sausage up her bottom could lead to her being jailed, a barrister has claimed.
On Wednesday Hopkins vowed to carry out the stunt in the event Sadiq Khan won the London Mayoralty, and on Saturday confirmed she would do so following his victory. She tweeted that she was sourcing a halal sausage for the streak. The choice of sausage, is in reference to Khan's Muslim faith.
The Secret Barrister blog on Sunday suggested that given Hopkins made the pledge at a time when it was obvious Khan would win, the vow was simply an "opportunistic" attempt to make the elections about her.
"A significant British political landmark has quickly become about one damaged woman’s repeat self-publicity/immolation campaign," the barrister wrote.
He added that "offences against standards of common decency are her (Hopkins') stock in trade", but offences against the criminal law, were a new tactic.
As a "public service for the attention of both Hopkins and any bystanding prosecutorial authorities" - the barrister then highlighted the criminal acts Hopkins would be committing if she completes the sausage stunt.
The barrister said the act would breach public decency laws which cover all "open lewdness, grossly scandalous behavior and whatever openly outrages decency or is offensive and disgusting". He noted the act need not be "sexual" in nature and that the maximum sentence for the crime was life imprisonment.
"Save for a strategically placed fig leaf, which would rather contravene the explicit terms of her pledge", the barrister said, Hopkins would also be breaching exposure laws. The maximum sentence for committing the crime is two years' imprisonment.
The stunt would also be in breach of the "copper's favourite", the barrister wrote, the "catch-all" section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. He cited the case of the Naked Rambler, which began an offence contrary to section 5.
Hopkins could also be charged for being a public nuisance, the barrister suggested, as that was defined as doing an act "not warranted by law, the effect of which is to endanger life, health property or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise of enjoyment of rights common to all Her Majesty's Subjects".
The barrister suggested that Hopkins performing a streak would "plainly affront the right of her Majesty's Subjects to not be subjected to such a sight, and at the very least would affect the reasonable comfort and convenience of life for those innocent Regent Street shoppers".
The barrister suggested that a charge of public nuisance would be most appropriate, as the very wording of the charge was a "fitting description of Hopkins".
Hopkins on Sunday told LBC that she felt that Zac Goldsmith’s London mayor campaign was “way too full of the sort of hatred we didn’t need”.
She said: “He allowed other people to speak through his mouth it seems, other people to plant words in his head, other people to make him out to be something so disgenuine, so inauthentic, that even for someone like me who is called the closest thing to Rose West, people think I’m a horror story, and even I found Zac Goldsmith’s campaign to be way too full of the sort of hatred we didn’t need."