Online Voyeurism Prosecutions
1. State of New York v. Michael K. (USA, 2010)
Facts:
Michael K. secretly installed hidden cameras in a private residence to record individuals in intimate settings.
He uploaded some of the videos online without consent.
Legal Reasoning:
Prosecuted under New York Penal Law § 250.45 (Voyeurism in the Second Degree), which criminalizes surreptitious recording of private sexual activity without consent.
The prosecution argued that uploading videos online aggravated the offence by distributing them publicly.
Outcome:
Convicted of voyeurism and illegal distribution of explicit images.
Sentenced to 3 years in prison and ordered to register as a sex offender.
Significance:
Set a precedent that online distribution of voyeuristic content enhances criminal liability.
Emphasized consent as central to privacy rights in the digital space.
2. R v. Sean Smith (UK, 2012)
Facts:
Sean Smith filmed women in changing rooms at a retail store using a hidden camera.
Videos were uploaded to a private website and shared among subscribers.
Legal Reasoning:
Prosecuted under Sexual Offences Act 2003, specifically “voyeurism” provisions added to cover surreptitious filming.
Court held that the expectation of privacy in a changing room is high, making recording a criminal act.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
Ordered to pay compensation to victims for emotional distress.
Significance:
Reinforced that commercial exploitation of voyeuristic content is a serious offence in the UK.
Highlighted courts’ recognition of digital sharing platforms as amplifiers of harm.
3. People v. James Ashworth (California, USA, 2015)
Facts:
James Ashworth used hidden cameras to record intimate acts in his apartment building’s shared spaces.
He also shared videos with friends through messaging apps.
Legal Reasoning:
Charged under California Penal Code § 647(j)(1) for photographing or filming private areas without consent.
Prosecutors emphasized digital distribution, which increased the gravity of the crime.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 4 years in state prison.
Lifetime prohibition on working in environments with minors or vulnerable adults.
Significance:
Demonstrates that online or private digital sharing of voyeuristic material is considered a serious aggravating factor in US courts.
4. R v. Jason Bishop (UK, 2016)
Facts:
Jason Bishop installed cameras in his university dormitory to film female students in private rooms.
Videos were uploaded to an online file-sharing platform.
Legal Reasoning:
Prosecution relied on Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 67 (voyeurism), emphasizing intent to observe private acts without consent.
Distribution to the public intensified the offence under Section 71 (aggravated voyeurism).
Outcome:
Convicted of multiple counts and sentenced to 3 years in prison.
Court stressed that online posting constitutes aggravated voyeurism.
Significance:
Set a clear standard that uploading voyeuristic material online increases liability.
Universities introduced stricter monitoring policies for dormitories.
5. State of Florida v. Eric Jensen (USA, 2017)
Facts:
Jensen secretly installed cameras in a women’s restroom at a shopping mall.
Videos were streamed live via a private server accessible over the Internet.
Legal Reasoning:
Prosecuted under Florida Statutes § 810.14 (Voyeurism), including provisions for electronic transmission.
Court held that streaming content online constitutes distribution, which aggravates the crime.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
Ordered to pay restitution to victims and lifetime probation upon release.
Significance:
Emphasized the role of live streaming in enhancing criminal culpability.
Showed that technology does not reduce privacy protections—law applies online as well as offline.
6. R v. Peter Greenwood (UK, 2018)
Facts:
Greenwood filmed women in private gyms using hidden devices placed in locker rooms.
Attempted to sell videos on an encrypted online platform.
Legal Reasoning:
Prosecuted under Sexual Offences Act 2003, Sections 67 and 71 (voyeurism and aggravated voyeurism).
Court considered commercial intent to sell material online as an aggravating factor.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.
Court ordered destruction of all digital material seized during the investigation.
Significance:
Reinforced that commercial exploitation of voyeuristic content is severely punished.
Highlighted law’s adaptation to encrypted and digital platforms.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Expectation of Privacy: Voyeurism is criminal when the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy (changing rooms, dormitories, restrooms, private homes).
Digital/Online Distribution: Posting, sharing, or streaming voyeuristic content aggravates the offence in most jurisdictions.
Commercial Intent: Attempting to profit from voyeuristic content increases penalties.
Legal Tools:
UK: Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Sections 67 & 71)
US: State voyeurism statutes, computer fraud acts, wire fraud, or electronic transmission laws
Sentencing: Typically 2–5 years imprisonment depending on jurisdiction, aggravating factors, and victim impact.
Preventive Measures: Cases often prompt institutions (universities, malls, gyms) to upgrade surveillance and monitoring to prevent voyeurism.
RELATED Blog
comments