A MAN found guilty of "intentionally flashing" at a lone woman in Carlisle city centre has won his appeal against the conviction.

Jason Littlewood, 48, also learned that the strict sentence he had previously received from magistrates would be completely revoked.

Mr Littlewood was convicted earlier this year of indecent exposure - a charge he vehemently denied.

He lodged an appeal which was heard at Carlisle Crown Court.

The charge arose out of an incident on English Street in the early hours of November 19.

A woman walking home from a night out was approached by Mr Littlewood, to whom she gave a cigarette.

Giving evidence, the woman recalled initially speaking about the Outrageous bar to Mr Littlewood, who was wearing jeans and a sports coat.

"He took his jeans off to reveal he was wearing ladies' underwear beneath his jeans," she recalled. "I saw he was wearing black stockings and suspenders."

She said he then exposed himself which made her feel "very uneasy. "I said that I wasn't interested, that it was time to get dressed and go home."

The woman walked off and called police. The court heard a person was guilty of exposure if it was "intentional", and would cause somebody "alarm and distress".

But, in evidence, Mr Littlewood insisted there had been no such intent.

"I like dressing up," he stated. "It is a bit of a fetish I have got."

He had wanted to attend Outrageous, but became "nervous" and "a bit panicky". He met the woman while debating whether or not to go.

"I just said I like to take my jeans off and walk around," he said, insisting he then undressed with the woman's "permission" and was "discreet".

Asked whether he intentionally exposed himself, Mr Littlewood, of Stockton-on-Tees, replied: "No. definitely not. That would definitely not be my intention."

Recorder Sarah Johnston, hearing the appeal with two magistrates, rejected "some, if not many aspects" Mr Littlewood's account.

But, allowing his appeal, Recorder Johnston concluded: "In short, we cannot be sure to the required standard that the exposure by this appellant on this occasion was intentional. We are not satisfied, therefore, that the offence is made out."