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?