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.

Rioters Laugh as They Go Down

16 rioters behind a lot of violence in the Notting Hill area of London, including the robbery of the two-Michelin-starred Ledbury restaurant were jailed for a total of over 73 years between them. The judge at Inner London Crown Court contrasted the rioters “mob criminality” to the “excellence” of Team GB’s Olympic athletes. One of the 16 was apprehended by TV presenter Dan Snow. They also attacked shops, police cars and police officers. An off-licence, where the shop keeper was maliciously beaten with a glass bottle, was also robbed. Two of the offenders smiled and laughed after receiving their sentences. HS&Co have dealt with cases stemming from the London riots. In Your Defence.

Cop Out

A police officer in Yorkshire falsely claimed her daughter had cancer and various other life threatening diseases to get time off work. She claimed her daughter had to have chemotherapy for her condition and missed shifts due to this. Meanwhile, her daughter was taking part in show jumping events. The offences relate to the period between 1 January 2009 and 10 October last year when Hewitt was a constable with North Yorkshire Police. She pleaded guilty to fraud and misconduct in public office earlier this year at Hull Crown Court and was jailed for 18 months. Jailing Hewitt, the judge said: "Your actions have undermined the trust the police officers place in each other and they will no doubt undermine, to some extent at least, the trust members of the public place in the police.”