To ask if recording someone in a private act without consent is an offence

[TatianaLarina]

... whether or not the intent was for sexual gratification or not?

As per the voyeurism laws in the Sex Offences Act. I was looking at it and it's not clear to a layperson.

Section 67 states:

(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.

Is (a) an offence in itself, or does it have to include (b) and (c) to be one?

It is illegal to record a person and share the recording without their consent

Not unless the person recorded is doing a private act; intercourse, masturbation, excretion spring to mind but there may be other candidates.

Christina surely that only applies if the person is doing a private act?

I took a photo last year of dh asleep (in bed with covers over him, so fully decent) with the cat curled up asleep on his chest, and put it on FB, because it looked very sweet. Was I technically breaking the law because sleeping is a "private act" and dh didn't know I was taking the picture?

So if you filmed someone during sex without consent, but out of curiosity or love rather than to stimulate masturbation, it is legal, and if the film was for sexual use its OK if the person consented to sexual use as well ie if person filmed sex act for gratification, person being filmed gave consent for curiosity, or love but not explicitly for masturbation to, then it would be illegal. If a person filmed someone not for sexual gratification, but person gave consent for gratification, non sexual use is OK too.

But if no consent, but filming was not intended for gratification, then it's OK, whether or not it is later used for gratification.

I think in my example, if the woman discovered that she was being filmed, she would be able to take that to the police, because he'd REALLY struggle to prove he didn't intend to share it.

A person could make that defence yes. Is that defence likely to be believed? Doubt it

Of course filming someone having sex without their consent is an offence! Any sort of secret filming, even a stranger sunbathing, for your own sexual gratification is classed as the sex crime of voyeurism.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-man-who-secretly-filmed-himself-having-sex-with-lovers-is-jailed-6732316.html%3Famp

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29380697

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/voyeur-put-sex-offenders-register-4012113.amp

So, say you are having sex with your boyfriend, and you find out later that he recorded it. How would you prove you hadn't given consent to be filmed? People do that sort of thing.

You would just provide a statement to the police.

But couldn't the other person just say you consented? It's one person's word against the other. Being that we're innocent until proven guilty, it seems that the onus would be in the victim to prove she hadn't consented.

Partly, the whole point of the criminal justice system is a person doesn't have to prove their innocence, the state has to prove them guilty. That said the footage would likely support any allegations due to where it was when the filming took place. If it was on a shelf in the corner of the room hidden by a towel then it would be much easier to prove. If however the footage was taken on a mobile phone held during sex taking place then it would be more difficult.

Add to that any additional footage seized during the investigation and it's not to difficult to prove the lack of consent.

Most of the case law is about whether the act filmed was 'private' or not.

for your own sexual gratification

And there's the rub, because it turns out that that potentially if you could convince people that it wasn't done for gratification, then it may not be illegal.

Apparently there is someone famous who before he has sex with women asks them to both sign a document and record a video message consenting.

There are ways of protecting against rape allegations without filming it so that excuse wouldn't wash.

Agreed. I'd suggest if you're that suspicious of women you shouldn't be having sex with them.

For me the scenario was more about the light it shed on the voyeurism laws than the excuse itself - which is highly dodgy.

I find it difficult to get my head around why somebody would film themselves having sex with somebody as evidence it was consensual. Why would you have sex with somebody you suspect might accuse you of rape?

Misogyny and paranoia I'd say. And poor social skills.

Actually it can get even more tricky.
Because you can be filmed or have a phot taken wo your consent but this can/could be deemed to not been done for sexual gratification.
Then 2 years later, same partners split and the same film/photos can be used as a revenge (put in the net) or for sexual gratification.

How can you tell whether any film like isn't going to be used at some point for self gratification?

You can't. It's the intent at the time which matters.