Turner, R. v Mark

In sentencing for voyeurism, custody may be justified although images were not circulated where the offender abused a position of trust and the offending had a serious, traumatic effect on several victims. The custody threshold remains fact-sensitive. Abuse of a position does not itself require imprisonment in every case, particularly where community treatment is appropriate.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to three offences of voyeurism contrary to section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, with a fourth offence taken into consideration. He had secretly filmed women using showers or sun beds at a sports centre where he was manager.

Committed to the Crown Court at Derby for sentence, he received 14 months’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether immediate custody was justified and, if so, whether 14 months was excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the 14-month sentence and substituted nine months’ imprisonment.

2. The court treated the offending as materially more serious than that in R v IP [2004] EWCA Crim 2646. Although neither case involved circulation of the recordings and there were factual similarities, this appellant had filmed four women and had abused his managerial position at the sports centre.

3. That abuse of trust took the case over the custody threshold. The court also stressed that voyeurism can have a traumatic effect on victims, potentially comparable in some cases to the impact of sexual assault. The absence of distribution did not remove the victims’ understandable fear that the images might be circulated.

4. A custodial sentence was therefore not wrong in principle. However, 14 months was longer than the circumstances justified, notwithstanding the gravity of the offending.

5. The court added that abuse of a position does not make custody compulsory in every voyeurism case. Where the particular circumstances make treatment in the community appropriate, a non-custodial disposal may still be proper.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted nine months’ imprisonment for 14 months: [2006] EWCA Crim 63.
• Crown Court at Derby: On 24 August 2005, imposed 14 months’ imprisonment after committal for sentence.
• Magistrates’ Court: On 8 July 2005, the appellant pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence.