Crosswords1 min ago
Criminal Offence?
While walking the dog I saw a guy videoing children playing in the park. Is this a criminal offence?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by doodler. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If he is receiving sexual gratification then maybe yes.
If he is making any commercial enterprise out of it (not sexual, but say brochures without the childs or parents consent) then yes
If he is harassing the kids (i.e they have asked him to stop) then yes.
If not then people can film what they want.
If he is making any commercial enterprise out of it (not sexual, but say brochures without the childs or parents consent) then yes
If he is harassing the kids (i.e they have asked him to stop) then yes.
If not then people can film what they want.
Further to Abdulmajid's answer:
Unless the children were unclothed, it's unlikely that any prosecution could be brought under the Sexual Offences Act (or any other legislation). A recent test case, for example, on a charge of 'voyeurism' ruled that it could only relate to exposed parts of the body which could normally be expected to produce sexual excitement. (A guy who filmed bare-chested men in a changing room was acquitted because male chests weren't considered to be sexually titivating). As far as the Sexual Offences Act relates specifically to children, it refers only to 'indecent' images. (The test case of R v Oliver ruled that images of 'partial nudity' could be considered to be 'indecent', but this probably only relates to, say, pictures of a topless female teenager. Pictures of children playing in their swimming costumes would be unlikely to qualify).
Since the question refers to a criminal offence, I'm surprised to see Abdulmajid's reference to commercial enterprise. Using someone's image, for commercial purposes, might leave the photographer (or publisher) open to civil action but it's not a criminal offence.
Harassment is hard to prove. It requires showing a sustained course of actions likely to cause fear or distress. (Simply annoying someone by repeatedly taking their photograph - even when asked not to do so - is not, per se, an offence).
Otherwise, as Abdulmajid states, anyone is generally free to photograph (with both still and moving images) who or what they like, as long as the photographer is in a public place (or on his own property or elsewhere the with permission of the property's owner). The position of the subjects of the photographs is irrelevant. It's lawful to photograph children - or anyone else - in the street (or even through the windows of their houses) as long as the photographer is in a public place.
Chris
Unless the children were unclothed, it's unlikely that any prosecution could be brought under the Sexual Offences Act (or any other legislation). A recent test case, for example, on a charge of 'voyeurism' ruled that it could only relate to exposed parts of the body which could normally be expected to produce sexual excitement. (A guy who filmed bare-chested men in a changing room was acquitted because male chests weren't considered to be sexually titivating). As far as the Sexual Offences Act relates specifically to children, it refers only to 'indecent' images. (The test case of R v Oliver ruled that images of 'partial nudity' could be considered to be 'indecent', but this probably only relates to, say, pictures of a topless female teenager. Pictures of children playing in their swimming costumes would be unlikely to qualify).
Since the question refers to a criminal offence, I'm surprised to see Abdulmajid's reference to commercial enterprise. Using someone's image, for commercial purposes, might leave the photographer (or publisher) open to civil action but it's not a criminal offence.
Harassment is hard to prove. It requires showing a sustained course of actions likely to cause fear or distress. (Simply annoying someone by repeatedly taking their photograph - even when asked not to do so - is not, per se, an offence).
Otherwise, as Abdulmajid states, anyone is generally free to photograph (with both still and moving images) who or what they like, as long as the photographer is in a public place (or on his own property or elsewhere the with permission of the property's owner). The position of the subjects of the photographs is irrelevant. It's lawful to photograph children - or anyone else - in the street (or even through the windows of their houses) as long as the photographer is in a public place.
Chris
No its not illegal and unless there was more evidence that anything untoward was happening you should do nothing.
Getting entirely innocent people into trouble for this kind of thing is making the world a crazy place to live in.
Getting over an accusation like that if completely innocent is pretty well impossible as there are so many "theres no smoke without fire" attitudes around.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !!!!!
Getting entirely innocent people into trouble for this kind of thing is making the world a crazy place to live in.
Getting over an accusation like that if completely innocent is pretty well impossible as there are so many "theres no smoke without fire" attitudes around.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !!!!!
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Yep, civil offence re the entrepreneur, I got carried away.
As Chris says Harassment is hard to "prove" but easy to curb. Best practice for most police forces is to issue a "first course of conduct" warning. After that has been issued (very similar to a civil injunction, but at the same time hugely different) the offence will be easier to prove.
And just to add to the current voyeur laws I said "maybe" insofar as the act filmed, taped or photoed should really be a private act. Kids in a park (no doubt public) will be hard to prove it was a private act. The shower incident Chris mentions, although in a "public" swimming bath will still be deemed a private act.
Although the shower questioned normal sexual acts (the chest not being deemed sexual) there are similar cases before the 2003 act. Do you recall the shoe shop worker who used to get his rocks off molesting and sniffing womens feet?? I am sure there was some offence in the end, but sexual assault (as it was then known) was never proved.
As Chris says Harassment is hard to "prove" but easy to curb. Best practice for most police forces is to issue a "first course of conduct" warning. After that has been issued (very similar to a civil injunction, but at the same time hugely different) the offence will be easier to prove.
And just to add to the current voyeur laws I said "maybe" insofar as the act filmed, taped or photoed should really be a private act. Kids in a park (no doubt public) will be hard to prove it was a private act. The shower incident Chris mentions, although in a "public" swimming bath will still be deemed a private act.
Although the shower questioned normal sexual acts (the chest not being deemed sexual) there are similar cases before the 2003 act. Do you recall the shoe shop worker who used to get his rocks off molesting and sniffing womens feet?? I am sure there was some offence in the end, but sexual assault (as it was then known) was never proved.
-- answer removed --
1 to 11 of 11
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|