Voyeur filmed women in changing rooms - suspended sentence

Is there any reason why both/all his names should not be given, either in court or in the papers? There's nothing against 'deadnaming' people, is there, apart from revealing someone's change of gender or endangering people in witness protection?

Why not say X otherwise known as Y/formerly known as Y/known as Y at the time the offences were committed, etc? I thought that was standard police-speak.

Should changing one's name be allowed in these circumstances? Couldn't that right be put on hold as soon as someone's arrested?

Thats an interesting point; one reason why I think the sentance was unduly leniant in this case is the perp showed a clear pattern of escalating behaviour, which led to further types of offence (e.g. its a separate offence to hack someones computer.) I'm not convinced the law has fully caught up with how computers are used and misused, or the effect they can have on people's behaviour.

Some discussion but my impression is that the area is underresearched, like indecent exposure, so there probably isn't enough analysis to assess the gateway connection and if there is one. It may happen because digital voyeurism can now involve other incidental charges such as possessing indecent images, transmitting them etc.

www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/why-bad-looks-good/201801/beyond-looking-when-voyeurism-leads-criminal-behavior

www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/voyeurism

Is there any evidence that voyeurism is a gateway to more serious crimes like there is with indecent exposure?

That's awful.

I wonder if it was before 2015 when Shpo's came in (and the whole criminal justice system was overhauled). Or before dedicated MOSOVO officers (not sure when they came in)

Personally I would expect all Shpo's to be monitored and enforced from voyeurs to images to contact offender (upon release).

Re monitoring of sex offenders. Some years ago a little boy was sexually assaulted, murdered, and shoved down the rubbish chute in a tower block.
The murderer lived in the same block of flats and was supposed to be monitored after his release from prison two years or so earlier.
A spokesman for the police was honest. There were several hundred sex offenders in the area and there was no way they could all be monitored - he didn't have the manpower, he really didn't
I suppose they must try to prioritise the most dangerous offenders. A voyeur is horrible but he isn't dangerous.
The answer is more manpower for the police and longer sentences for sex offenders.

Here we are - it was in 2016 (amazed I remembered it)
www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/bangor-camera-pervert-faces-mixed-changing-rooms-ban-34933121.html

Thank you andweallsingalong for the information. I do recall one predator who was barred from women's and mixed sex changing rooms (if I recall correctly).
Shame that's not used more often..

I'm concerned about this happening at our new swimming pool. I've contacted the company who will be running it to ask what their policies are, not heard back.
Does anyone have any good examples of policies on voyeurism, exhibitionism and secret filming in local leisure facilities?

To be fair the courts do deal with lots of cases of breach of sexual harm prevention order or sex offender registration, but I see it the opposite way in that it's that they are so closely monitored that infringements are picked up quickly and returned to court, usually before anything really bad can happen.

So lots of failures to sign the register at the right time, unauthorised device found, deleted data or new relationships discovered (and disclosure made).

I'm feeling slightly more reassured. I think it's that the cases that stick in my mind are ones like this where it seemed quite straightforward for someone to breach an SHPO.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4218934-Transitioning-child-rapist-who-breached-order-spared-jail-over-prison-safety-concerns

That said, despite the numbers of such breaches recorded here (of a subgroup rather than the general class of SHPO), I have to say that I don't know the denominator so I don't know if it is a very small number of people who go on to violate an SHPO or (say) 10% or so of all those who are subject to them.

transcrimeuk.com/category/sexual-offences/breaching-sopo/

That's scandalous, especially the DBS loophole, but different to this guys 10 year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

A SHPO is a court order with set conditions with no discretion for the police to remove. Rigorously monitored by specially trained (MOSOVO) police officers who will do regular visits and searches of his accommodation.

The order will state :-
*. Where he needs to live

• restrictions on devices and social media with conditions not to delete and have available for inspection
• might have exclusion zones
• might have no contact or no unsupervised contact conditions
• might have to wear a buddy tag with real time GPS tracking

And that's in addition to signing the sex offenders register and his suspended sentence order with mandatory intensive rehabilitation.

There are never any guarantees someone won't reoffend, but this guy will be rigorously supervised and challenged on his behaviour.

Prison just isn't the deterrent people imagine in some cases, either. In some instances, yes, but for things like this, I tend to think not so much - people who do this stuff are lacking in terms of anticipating outcomes or in self-control, so the prospect of prison doesn't stop them.

And it's not like they are actually out of public circulation for a long time. It's not that protective.

Because prisons are usually overcrowded and under resourced, with 23 hours per day in a cell during covid (not sure if this has lifted) giving very little time or access to skilled staff to carry our rehabilitative work.

Add in that sex offenders all tend to be housed together to limit the risk of violence from other prisoners so spend 24 hours a day with like minded people (cell mate(s) and others on the wing) validating their behaviours and discussing potential for more serious offending / avoiding detection....

Yes, I see that too - although the "!" looks more like an "i" to me.

I posted it on Site Stuff.

Yes, I can, WhiteFire. Bit odd, no?

Why not both? Prison for punishment, plus the Sexual Harm prevention order?

Can anyone else see Mishy's post in grey with a ❕in a circle next to it?

Yeah, I have to kind of agree with the poster above, I'm not convinced that jail is actually a real solution. It seems worse but it's not at all clear that it creates a better outcome in the end, and it can have an element of "lets just make this look harsh to satisfy people's sense of revenge." It's also a significant expense and the more people that get thrown in jail the less there is available to try other things that may be more effective.

Or in a manner they did intend

It's up to you, Mishy but I'd recommend that you ask for withdrawal of your transphobic comment. You might be in some jeopardy of it being screenshotted and used in a manner other than you intended on other sites.