Watching You, Watching Me: Liability for Voyeurism When the Voyeur Is also a Participant in a Private Act: R v Richards [2020] EWCA Crim 95
| Author | Tony Storey |
| Published date | 01 June 2020 |
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022018320929515 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Watching You, Watching Me:
Liability for Voyeurism When
the Voyeur Is also a Participant
in a Private Act
R v Richards [2020] EWCA Crim 95
Keywords
Voyeurism, secret filming of ‘private act’ by participan t in the act, reasonable expectation
of privacy
Tony Richards (R) had filmed himself on his mobile phone having sex with two prostitutes, SD and JW,
in their own bedrooms. The recordings came to the attention of the police while they were investigating
R for possession of indecent photographs of children. The police had seized the phone and found the
recordings, which the police suspected had been made without the consent of the women. R claimed that
both women had agreed to being filmed and that he had paid more for the privilege. The two prostitutes
contradicted his version of events. SD gave evidence that she enjoyed being filmed and charged more
when being filmed; but on this occasion, she had not known about the film ing and hence was not
consenting to it. JW, on the other hand, did not agree to being filmed at all, as she was worried about
recordings ending up on the Internet.
R was charged with two counts of voyeurism, contrary to s 67(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the
2003 Act). This provides that ‘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’. Section 68 of the 2003 Act adds that ‘For the purposes of section
67, a person is doing a private act if the p erson is in a place which, in the circu mstances, would
reasonably be expected to provide privacy.’
R appeared before HHJ Lloyd-Clarke and a jury at Cardiff Crown Court in July 2019. During the trial,
R submitted that there was no case to answer to a charge under s 67(3) where R was himself a participant
in the private act. This was rejected by the trial judge. The jury was directed to determine whether JD and
SW were in a place which would provide a reasonable expectation of privacy, and whether the acts of
intercourse with R were ‘private acts’. R was convicted on both counts. R appealed, contending that JD
and SW were not doing a ‘private act’ as far as he was concerned. He argued that they were not in a place
which ‘would reasonably be expected to provide privacy’ from him, because he was not only in the same
place (their bedrooms) with their consent but was participating in the allegedly private act.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that a defendant ‘can be guilty of an offence of voyeurism in relation to
sexual activity in which he participated .... It follows that section 67(3), which protects against the
recording of another person doing a private act, is not limited to protecting the privacy of the complai-
nant from secret filming by someone who was not present during the private act in question.’
The Journal of Criminal Law
2020, Vol. 84(3) 259–262
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018320929515
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial