IP, R v

For voyeurism involving covert filming of an adult family member, custody is not automatically justified. Sentencing must reflect the seriousness of recording the victim, but also the absence of dissemination or commercial exploitation, the offender’s mitigation, and the available rehabilitative response. Where those matters show that imprisonment is disproportionate, a community rehabilitation order with a targeted sex-offender programme may be the proper sentence.

The appellant installed a camera in the loft above his home bathroom and connected it to a screen in his bedroom so that he could watch his adult stepdaughter shower. He admitted doing so on several occasions and pleaded guilty to two offences under section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Having been committed from the Magistrates’ Court, he received concurrent sentences of eight months’ imprisonment in the Crown Court at Northampton. He applied for leave to appeal against sentence. The issue was whether immediate custody was justified for this covert filming and observation.

1. Appeal allowed. The concurrent sentences of eight months’ imprisonment were set aside.

2. The conduct was serious and properly described as disgusting. The covert recordings made the offending more serious than mere spying. However, the recordings had not been shown or circulated to others, posted online, or sold. The victim was an adult.

3. The appellant’s previous good character, early admissions and early guilty pleas were material mitigation. He had left the family home after the offending was discovered, and his wife did not wish him to return. He was plainly in need of therapy.

4. On those facts, custody was not justified. The court accepted the probation service’s recommendation and substituted concurrent community rehabilitation orders for one year. Each order required participation in a Community Sex Offender Group Work Programme as directed by the supervising probation officer, under Schedule 2 to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

5. The related notification requirement under the Sex Offenders Act 1997 was reduced consequentially to five years from the date of the original sentencing.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the sentence appeal in [2004] EWCA Crim 2646; set aside the custodial sentences and substituted concurrent one-year community rehabilitation orders.

• Crown Court at Northampton: on 6 August 2004, imposed concurrent sentences of eight months’ imprisonment after the appellant had been committed for sentence from the Magistrates’ Court.