London, May 16: It is perfectly legal to ogle a man’s chest but not a woman’s breasts, according to an unusual ruling on what constitutes voyeurism by a panel of leading judges in the UK.

Only women’s breasts can be regarded as “private parts”, whereas the male chest — even if the male in question has man breasts, or “moobs” as they are known — cannot, the judges say.

The distinction between the sexual status of the female and male chest area was made during the quashing of a conviction for voyeurism at a public swimming pool.

Kevin Bassett, of Spalding, Lincs, was found guilty last year of the charge after he secretly filmed a man as he showered in his trunks.

The 44-year-old care home worker was given an 18-month supervision order, but appealed on the grounds that the alleged offence did not fall into any category in the 2003 Sexual Offences Act under which he was charged.

Lawyers for Bassett said the act stated that private parts — such as breasts — must be “exposed” during an act of voyeurism.

It was claimed that the act only referred to female breasts and that the jury had been poorly directed by the judge at St Albans Crown Court.

Justice Hughes, sitting at the Court of Appeal in London with Treacy and Paul Cresswell, said the trial judge had given the jury legal directions before they retired, but had failed to properly address the question of the meaning of breasts.

He ruled that Judge John Plumstead’s directions to the jury were flawed and quashed Bassett’s conviction.

Referring to the 2003 act, Hughes said: “The intention of the parliament was to mean female breasts and not an exposed male chest.