Join for free
Dodge's Avatar
Dodge
Senior Member
Dodge is offline
Kent, UK
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,117
Dodge is male  Dodge has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
08-08-2020, 10:05 PM
1

I didn't think retrospective action with a new law was allowed?

I've just read this news article where a man has been arrested and charged based on a new law that was introduced this year for something he did in 2015.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/woman-film...165421745.html

The man took a video of a naked woman in a hotel room, the woman says she has no idea who the man is, how she ended up in a hotel room or how she ended up naked on the bed.

Now this is the part I am confused about. What the man did is deplorable BUT it was not against the law..this is a section from the news article:

Although voyeurism is a crime under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, until this year the Crown Prosecution Service had stated filming someone naked in a private room did not constitute an offence if they had consented to being looked at naked.

But after a court of appeal in January clarified non-consensual intimate filming as illegal, prosecutors reviewed Hunt's case and arrested Killick in May.
As you can see, in January 2020, the court of appeal deemed such kind of actions as illegal and thus the CPS reviewed the case and prosecuted the man under the new Voyeurism law. I was under the impression that this is not allowed. That you cannot make new laws or amendment to laws and then go after people who committed illegal acts in the past.

Again, I was under the impression that only those who committed acts after new laws are introduced can be prosecuted. So, if this man can be prosecuted under the new law for something he did that was not illegal at the time, does this mean that the government, if they wanted to, could make a new law and anyone in the past could be prosecuted under the new law??? How is that right?

Again, what the man did is deplorable but considering the law is supposed to be fair for all, is it right that he should be arrested and charged for something he did in the past that was not illegal?
spitfire
Chatterbox
spitfire is offline
Warwickshire
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 29,878
spitfire is male  spitfire has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
08-08-2020, 10:12 PM
2

Re: I didn't think retrospective action with a new law was allowed?

The Law is a free-for-all nowadays, it is particularly selective of late.
Omah's Avatar
Omah
Chatterbox
Omah is offline
Ludlow
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,147
Omah is male  Omah has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
08-08-2020, 11:02 PM
3

Re: I didn't think retrospective action with a new law was allowed?

As I understand the available details of the case, no "new" law was used for retrospective action.

Instead, the existing law, the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, was reviewed by the Court of Appeal in the context of Emily Hunt's case (and others) and the interpretation of that law, by the CPS, that non-consensual "filming" during sexual activity was not illegal, has been deemed incorrect - such "filming" IS illegal under the 2003 Act.

Subsequently, Christopher Killick was arrested, charged and pleaded guilty to the illegal "filming".


How Killick evaded a rape charge is still a mystery:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ned-truth.html

Killick, when originally arrested in May 2015, had a rucksack that contained condoms, Viagra and what was thought to be the hallucinogenic drug LSD. Police also found used condoms in the hotel room. Astonishingly, despite taking urine samples, the police refused to carry out an internal examination on Emily Hunt until five days later as they said she was ‘too intoxicated’ to consent to it. And when the toxicology results did come back, they showed Emily had ‘definitively’ not been drugged with the date-rape drug GHB – although two years on, re-run results came back as ‘inconclusive’.

Later, Emily found out that CCTV footage showed her leaving a bar with Killick less than a mile from the restaurant and the hotel. ‘It shows me swaying with my arms all over him,’ she says. ‘At various points I’m not able to hold myself up. I’m falling over onto a bench.’

n a strange parallel, her father, with whom she'd had lunch, had blurred memories of that day, too – with a hazy recollection of getting to the airport or taking his flight back to Ireland.

None of this seemed to be taken into account, and the CPS did not charge Killick with any offence on the basis that there wasn’t enough evidence.
Emily’s ordeal comes amid growing scrutiny on the CPS, which has been accused of not bringing enough rape cases to court and criticised for unsympathetic treatment of sexual assault victims.

Last year, the introduction of a new Voyeurism Offences Act was designed to deal with the increase of digital sex abuse, including ‘upskirting’, whereby someone photographs from below a woman’s skirt without her knowledge.
keezoy
Senior Member
keezoy is offline
Australia
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 3,579
keezoy is male  keezoy has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
09-08-2020, 12:24 AM
4

Re: I didn't think retrospective action with a new law was allowed?

All I can say is that if it wasn't illegal for him to commit such an offence in 2015 I would have to ask why. It certainly was illegal to do such a thing in this country in 2015 and a long time before. I don't think our laws are that much different to yours either in letter or spirit are they?..Either way the bloke is a grubby, selfish A hole and deserves everything he gets. retrospectively or not. I know what I'd do to the bastard if it was my wife or daughter and I had the chance.
The Artful Todger's Avatar
The Artful Todger
Chatterbox
The Artful Todger is offline
Suffolk UK
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 12,816
The Artful Todger is male  The Artful Todger has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
09-08-2020, 12:02 PM
5

Re: I didn't think retrospective action with a new law was allowed?

There is no retrospective introduction of a law involved. The nature and application of an existing law resulted in it being applied.
Cinderella's Avatar
Cinderella
Chatterbox
Cinderella is offline
East Anglia, UK
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,768
Cinderella is female  Cinderella has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
10-08-2020, 08:12 AM
6

Re: I didn't think retrospective action with a new law was allowed?

Originally Posted by spitfire ->
The Law is a free-for-all nowadays, it is particularly selective of late.
Ditto.
Omah's Avatar
Omah
Chatterbox
Omah is offline
Ludlow
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,147
Omah is male  Omah has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
04-09-2020, 05:39 PM
7

Re: I didn't think retrospective action with a new law was allowed?

Originally Posted by Omah ->
As I understand the available details of the case, no "new" law was used for retrospective action.

Instead, the existing law, the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, was reviewed by the Court of Appeal in the context of Emily Hunt's case (and others) and the interpretation of that law, by the CPS, that non-consensual "filming" during sexual activity was not illegal, has been deemed incorrect - such "filming" IS illegal under the 2003 Act.

Subsequently, Christopher Killick was arrested, charged and pleaded guilty to the illegal "filming".
Update:

Voyeur sentenced after woman's five-year campaign

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54027088

Killick, who previously pleaded guilty to voyeurism, was given a 30-month community order and fined £2,000.

At a Stratford Magistrates' Court hearing, he was also ordered to pay Ms Hunt £5,000 in compensation and put on the sexual offenders register for five years.
It's justice (of a sort):

Emily said that since January's ruling she had been contacted about similar cases to hers, adding that now "somebody was taking this seriously from the beginning and treating the victim like a victim" that this was "the biggest win".
Dodge's Avatar
Dodge
Senior Member
Dodge is offline
Kent, UK
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,117
Dodge is male  Dodge has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
04-09-2020, 05:51 PM
8

Re: I didn't think retrospective action with a new law was allowed?

Originally Posted by Omah ->
Update:

Voyeur sentenced after woman's five-year campaign

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54027088



It's justice (of a sort):



I am curious though. If the court of appeal says that the man could be charged under an existing law then why did it take 5 years for courts to come to that conclusion??

Things only progressed when the Voyeurism Offences Act was introduced but the court of appeal said an existing law would be suffice. The legal system is an ass in the UK for it to allow such a thing to happen.
 

Thread Tools


© Copyright 2009, Over50sForum   Contact Us | Over 50s Forum! | Archive | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Top

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.