The Appeal of Voyeurism

HS&Co represent on many sexual cases each year. Please note the following Court of Appeal case: R v B (M) 20/04/ 2012. This was a case of alleged voyeurism whereby the defendant had been lying on his back on the floor of a swimming pool changing cubicle. In the next cubicle there were two mothers supervising their six-year-old sons changing into swimming trunks. The man apparently put his head in the cubicle gap whilst the boys were naked. He said that he did this because his back hurt. He faced two counts of voyeurism country to section 67(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The crown court trial judge ruled that the defendant suffered from a learning disability and was not fit to plead or stand trial. Ergo, the judge said that the Crown only had to prove that the defendant had observed the relevant boy doing a private act and there was no sexual gratification requirement or that he’d done the act knowing that the victim did not consent to being observed for sexual gratification. The Court of Appeal judgement outlined all the elements involved in this offence and particularly that ‘observe’ meant a deliberate act of looking at someone doing something private, therefore not reckless of careless viewing of someone doing such an act. There also had to be the necessary sexual pleasure element. In a nutshell, HS&Co advise that there have to be two simultaneous actions in a voyeurism case: 1. Deliberate observation. 2. Specific intent to obtain sexual gratification, albeit this is subjective.