John Price QC, for the CPS, said that what mattered was the “nature of the observation”. It may be a betrayal of trust to record a person having sex with you but it’s not an illegal act.”
“The test is whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. “Lack of consent is not sufficient where the place where it occurs is shared with another. When parliament drew up the legislation, it did not define the rules simply as a lack of consent, Rees said. Jon Rees QC, for Richards, told the court that even though the two women may not have consented to being filmed, if Richards was entitled to be in their bedrooms they could not have a reasonable expectation to privacy.
The unanimous decision by Lord Justice Fulford, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb and Mrs Justice Foster came at the end of an application by Tony Richards, 39, of Cardiff, to have two voyeurism charges under section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act dismissed on the grounds that he had committed no crime. The CPS said afterwards it was urgently reviewing the decision and would assess whether to continue resisting a judicial review claim brought by Emily Hunt, the woman who intervened in the hearing and who has criticised prosecutors for refusing to bring charges after she was filmed naked in a hotel bedroom by a man without her consent. In a highly unusual development in a criminal case, the court allowed someone not directly involved in events to intervene in the hearing to develop arguments that consent should be the primary issue when considering cases under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act.
0 kommentar(er)
