Legal issues

The last couple of weeks, following the meet up in Covent Garden, have been a bit manic for the London Magic Mental and Hypnosis group, and to some extent this has included me and my own ambitions as an amateur hypnotist. The "Last Thursday Group", as our monthly HypnoMeets are now knows, has also been affected but to a lesser extent.

Following the meet up the week before last, which everybody enjoyed, including the members of the public that were hypnotised, questions were raised about the legality of what was going on. It turned out that much of this controversy was down to the actions of a hypnotist who goes by the name of Jonathan Royle and it was plain from the outset that although he hadn't been present he did not approve of what had gone on.

The particular issue which Royle raised was whether street hypnosis is legal under the 1952 Hypnotism Act, which is the law that regulates hypnosis for the purpose of entertainment in the UK. He insists that street hypnosis is illegal and that anybody who performs hypnosis on members of the public without a license is breaking the law.

As someone who knew little about Royle and thus previously had a neutral opinion of him I have to say that I have seen little about this individual over the last couple of weeks that endears him to me. A cursory glance at his blog may imply that his reasons for trying to discourage the LMMH meets are due to his concern for the safety of the public and for the good name of the profession of hypnosis. I'm not convinced of this however, and I believe that as one reads on the real motives for his trouble stirring become clear.

There's much about Royle's character that I find objectionable. To start with a lot of his blog post is centred around demeaning the work and character of other hypnotists for whom I have some respect, most notably Anthony Jacquin, Kev Sheldrake, Amit Badiani, and Vince Lynch. However despite being willing to publish such negative comments he has no reservations about sprinkling keywords such as "reality is plastic" all over his own work, presumably to bump up his hit rate. He also lectures the LMMH group about the morality and legality of performing street hypnosis, whilst at the same time anyone who visits his youtube channel can see him performing examples of exactly what he's railing against, indeed using significantly more violent and potentially dangerous methods.

In my opinion he is acting purely out of misguided self-interest. His self promotion is shameless and yet so far the only person I've heard saying that he's good is him. He's quite willing to try to leech off the popularity and work of others, rather than generate new and original content of his own that sells off its own merit. Indeed, despite his continuous torrent of self-affirmation, I don't think he can be said to regard his own work and expertise too highly if he feels that the only way to sell it is to try to kick down everybody else.

It did not surprise me to find out that he has spent time in prison for fraud.

Joe, on Uncommonforum, did some interesting webtrawling and found a couple of links regarding Royle (aka "Alex LeRoy" or "Alex Smith"), which make for interesting reading. Links here and here. He also indicates that a google search for "alex smith hypnosis jail" is also an education in itself. I like Joe, he's brilliant!

Unfortunately when it became clear that communications had been opened with Westminster council, who replied that they believed street hypnosis was not covered by the 1952 Act and thus would not require their approval, Royle made it his business to send a message to them to put his point across. Clearly spooked by his email, the council then did what authorities everywhere do when there is a speck of controversy and it's impossible to separate the good from the bad, which is to ban everything. Or at least try to; they have stated "no exhibition, performance or demonstration can take place" and threaten to fine anybody who does. Scary sounding stuff, but I'm not convinced they have the power to do that. As of tonight that is how things stand.

So on to the legal stuff.

Anybody who is interested can find the 1952 hypnotism act here. If you intend to perform hypnosis on the public in the UK I would encourage you to read through it, take some time to understand it and decide on your own position in relation to it.

Note that, whatever Royle may claim, there is no definitive interpretation of this document and nobody has ever been prosecuted under these laws in 57 years.

What follows is my interpretation. I think section 2 of the act is most relevant.

2 Control of demonstrations of hypnotism at other places

(1) No person shall give an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism on any living person at or in connection with an entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, at any place in relation to which such a licence as is mentioned in section one of this Act is not in force unless the controlling authority have authorised that exhibition, demonstration or performance.

For me the crucial line here is "in connection with an entertainment to which the public are admitted". This is what satisfies me that I am acting within the law if I hypnotise a stranger in the street or even in a pub; I cannot see how either are examples of "an entertainment to which the public are admitted".

It is also my opinion that it would take much more than simply practicing hypnosis on the street to prompt the authorities to take action. No council is likely to want to bear the expense of being the test case; indeed not only would they would have to prove that what is essentially a conversation between two private citizens is "an entertainment to which the public are admitted", but they would also have to prove that it was for the purpose of entertainment, that hypnosis was actually intended, that hypnosis was actually taking place (how do you prove that?), that hypnosis actually exists (many people believe it doesn't) and indeed if it did exist that it wasn't "self-hypnosis", which is permitted under section 6, and as many hypnotists believe that all hypnosis is self-hypnosis this could be difficult.

This said however, the bottom line is that any interaction with the general public, whilst not to be shied away from, should be approached with due restraint and caution. Subjects should be treated with complete respect, and consideration should always be paid to their health and safety. The hypnotism act may be little known, tenuous and open to interpretation, but it is also in my opinion the least likely charge one would face, and quite frankly deserve, for bad conduct in any case. More likely offenses would be examples such as causing an obstruction, public order, assault, or sexual harassment, which frankly a sensible hypnotist is unlikely to be guilty of.

My personal conclusion is that as far as I am concerned street hypnosis is legal and that nobody is likely to care anyway unless you make a scene, assault someone, or make inappropriate sexual approaches, none of which are things that are in my character.