Voyeur filmed women in changing rooms - suspended sentence

[DomesticatedZombie]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59399309

"He's gone from putting cameras in a bag on the beach, with people sunbathing... to then going extreme into filming in leisure facilities and finally hacking into people's computers."

...

"He changed his real name by deed poll before he was officially charged so he could protect his privacy.

He was able to use his new name and so protect his identity throughout the court case, from being charged to sentencing, giving him the luxury to remain "unknown"."

This is clearly a man who went to enormous lengths to spy on women - a huge number of women - over the course of an extended period of time.

Victims called his sentence 'unduly lenient' . (He got a 2 year suspended sentence and is on the SRO).

The woman quoted here is asking for voyeurism to be included on the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

'The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, under which people can appeal a sentence, has been expanded six times and includes many serious sexual offences.

Most recently, sexual offences involving an abuse of trust, indecent images offences and domestic abuse offences were added, however voyeurism is not currently included within its scope.'

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 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?

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..

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

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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?