Voyeurism Defence Solicitors

Voyeurism is committed when a person observes or records another person doing a private act, without that person’s consent and for the purpose of sexual gratification. Allegations typically involve observing or recording someone using the toilet, getting changed or engaging in sexual activity. This can take place directly or through hidden cameras, mobile phones or other recording equipment.

The consequences of a voyeurism conviction can be serious and can include a custodial sentence as well as being made subject to the sex offenders register. If someone is recorded in their own home, the sentencing guideline places the offence in the highest category, with a starting point of 26 weeks’ custody.

Reeds Solicitors specialises in defending sexual offence allegations and represents clients accused of voyeurism throughout the investigation and any subsequent court proceedings. We assess the evidence at an early stage to identify whether a defence is available. This may involve disputing whether the act was done for sexual gratification, whether the person accused was responsible for the recording, or whether a “private act” is legally established.

Reeds Solicitors is recognised as a leading criminal defence firm, with Tier 1 status in The Legal 500 and a Band 1 ranking in Chambers and Partners.

0333 240 7373 | [email protected]

What the Prosecution Must Prove

For an allegation of observing or recording a private act under section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the prosecution must establish that:

• The defendant observed or recorded another person;
• That person was doing a “private act”;
• The observation or recording was for the purpose of sexual gratification;
• The person did not consent; and
• The defendant knew that the person did not consent and did not reasonably believe that they consented.

Private Act

Section 68 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines a “private act”. A person is doing a private act if they are in a place where they would reasonably expect privacy and they are using the toilet, engaging in a sexual act not ordinarily performed in public, or their genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only by underwear.

Sexual Gratification

“Sexual gratification” is not specifically defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The prosecution must prove that obtaining sexual gratification was a purpose of the observation or recording.

A person’s purpose will often be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Relevant evidence may include the nature of what was observed or recorded, the positioning of any camera, and the duration or frequency of the conduct. In Abdullahi (Osmund Mohammed) [2006] EWCA Crim 2060, the Court observed that it was unnecessary for the sexual gratification to be simultaneous, contemporaneous or synchronised with the watching of the act.

Defences

The defence will depend on the form of voyeurism alleged and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution. Relevant issues may include:

• The defendant was not responsible: The defendant may deny observing the person or creating the recording. The presence of an image on a shared or accessible device does not necessarily establish who created it.
• The purpose was not sexual gratification: An observation or recording may have taken place for an unrelated purpose. The prosecution must prove that obtaining sexual gratification was a purpose of the conduct.
• Consent or reasonable belief in consent: There may be evidence that the person consented to being observed or recorded, or that the defendant reasonably believed they consented. Consent to sexual activity does not, by itself, necessarily amount to consent to being recorded.
• Accidental observation or recording: A person does not commit voyeurism merely because they inadvertently see or record a private act. The prosecution must establish the necessary intention and purpose.
• No private act was taking place: The prosecution must prove both that the activity fell within the statutory definition and that it occurred in circumstances where the person would reasonably expect privacy.