By punter99 - 27 Mar 25 11:01 AM
Interesting case in the news recently.
Laurence Fox was charged with upskirting, because he shared a photo that someone else had taken.
Under s66A of the SOA 2003, this is an offence, if the person who shares the image does so either to cause humiliation and distress, OR for sexual gratification.
I expect it was probably to cause humiliation, not for sexual gratification, but if sentenced to a 12 months community order, or imprisonment, he will go on the SOR anyway. The photo was actually taken before upskirting was an offence, so I wonder if that will make any difference?
|
By punter99 - 31 Mar 25 10:39 AM
+x+xInteresting case in the news recently. Laurence Fox was charged with upskirting, because he shared a photo that someone else had taken. Under s66A of the SOA 2003, this is an offence, if the person who shares the image does so either to cause humiliation and distress, OR for sexual gratification. I expect it was probably to cause humiliation, not for sexual gratification, but if sentenced to a 12 months community order, or imprisonment, he will go on the SOR anyway. The photo was actually taken before upskirting was an offence, so I wonder if that will make any difference? Hi wouldnt it come under the "historical" scenario as taken before the act? Mind you many newspapers might be worried if it did.
The person who took the photo did so legally at the time. This is really about the sharing of it. But you are right that any newspaper who reprints page 3 pics of a 16 year old from the 1980s, would now be guilty of a crime.
Maybe a better question would be, whether these pictures still exist in the Sun archives, or if they have been destroyed? Some of them have been shown on TV, but with certain body parts redacted, which suggests the original photos do exist. If they do, then someone possesses them and that person is now committing an offence.
|
|