Voyeurism reviewed
In the case of R v Norkus [2024] EWCA 1169, the Court of Appeal was required to review what does and what doesn’t amount to voyeurism.
Voyeurism is defined in s.67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as follows:
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third person (B) doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention.
(3) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he records another person (B) doing a private act,
(b) he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and
(c) he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention.
(4) A person commits an offence if he instals equipment, or constructs or adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under subsection (1).
Brief facts:
The complainant worked at a post office. The Appellant (the complainant’s boss) requested her mobile phone in order to install a work-related App.
Whilst loading the app onto her phone, private video clips of the complainant engaged in sexual acts with her partner were copied onto the work computer.
The Appellant alerted the complainant to what had happened but reassured her that the video clips had been removed.
The Appellant, subsequently, reported to the complainant that the video clips had again been copied and were accessible on the work computer.
The allegation:
The Appellant was alleged to have shown the video clips to others, which he firmly denied.
The issue:
- Did the Appellant view the video clips for the purposes of sexual gratification? &
- Did the observation element have to be contemporaneous with the activity observed?
The Ruling:
The Court of Appeal was required to closely consider s.67 of SOA 2003, in particular the intention of Parliament.
After much scrutiny, their Lordships quashed the conviction of voyeurism as the elements of the offence were not made out.
It was agreed that the Appellant did not record the original video clips AND his viewing of such was not contemporaneous to their making/recording.
The Court of Appeal further ruled that the issue of whether or not the Appellant viewed the video clips for sexual gratification was irrelevant.
Finally, if the Appellant had shown the video clips to others, that would now be a criminal offence contrary to s.66B of the SOA 2003.