Man Convicted Of Taking Pictures Of Women Without Consent

Phil V said:
Yes.
That's the reason the thread was started - it was rather badly reported.
Click to expand...

I think he is refering to the thread title.

Does anyone have a link to the report on his sentence?
 
I would like to know how it is a breach of the peace if he photographed from his own property, presumably without his 'models' knowing they were being photographed.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I would like to know how it is a breach of the peace if he photographed from his own property, presumably without his 'models' knowing they were being photographed.


Steve.
Click to expand...

His actions were deemed to cause fear, alarm or upset to the subjects and possibly cause them to make reprisals
 
Steve Smith said:
I would like to know how it is a breach of the peace if he photographed from his own property, presumably without his 'models' knowing they were being photographed.


Steve.
Click to expand...

It's quite simple.

Scots Law is different. Breach of the Peace is a very broad, criminal, offence under common law. You can be convicted of committing a breach of the peace in a private place - such as your own home or a work environment - or in a public place.

It's usually heard in the Sheriff Court, but can be referred to the High Court, and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. This is rarely imposed though.
 
Phil V said:
Or we can trust that the jury found him guilty on the evidence produced
Click to expand...

Er

1) As a BoP, it was most likely a Summary trial in the Sheriff Court, held by the Sheriff (Judge) alone, without a jury.

2) The defendant pleaded guilty anyhow, so even if a jury were present, their opinions were irrelevant to the outcome.
 
Last edited:
more likely a typo at original fm
 
Musicman said:
Er

1) As a BoP, it was most likely a Summary trial in the Sheriff Court, held by the Sheriff (Judge) alone, without a jury.

2) The defendant pleaded guilty anyhow, so even if a jury were present, their opinions were irrelevant to the outcome.
Click to expand...

Well it might have been 'most likely' but that's not the same as certain. And as he pleaded guilty, presumably under guidance from his solicitor, can we assume that he was guilty as charged? And if he was, do we assume that the sheriff had enough evidence to support the sentence.
 
I would register him as sex offender.........

The real question is WHY ONLY WOMEN? Why not men too!!
 
A lot of elements still baffle me, 70000 images is a lot - I don't think I've taken that many digital images since my first *istD in 2005. I would presume that for each woman photographed he has taken many photographs, as if he is staring through a camera lens, thus intimidating them.

I'd hate to be in the situation where I am in one place with my camera see an attractive lady and want to sneak a flattering image or two, I guess I am not alone, but 70k?

Personally, I am a LEGS man
 
perhaps he should post the pictures :lol:
 
...so what about security cameras? 25 frames a second 24 hours a day so that's nearly 4.5 million photos in a two year period. Are my council breaching the peace?

edit: I had a look at the police forum discussion (http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?/topic/134961-man-takes-70000-pictures-of-women/)
and one guy points out: "Every press photographer who takes photos of celebs on the beach has a sexual element to it."
but they do tend not to holiday in Scotland..

Edit: I'm remembering a news report about a man who took photos with his phone under the skirts of women whilst on an escalator. He was convicted of assault, despite the fact that his 'victims' were unaware of it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top