theForum » General Information » Current affairs and general news » Sexual offence with no sexual motive

Sexual offence with no sexual motive

punter99 — Sun, 13 Apr 2025 15:21:24 GMT

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?

RE: Sexual offence with no sexual motive

JASB — Sun, 13 Apr 2025 15:21:24 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 31 Mar 25 10:39 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 30 Mar 25 5:05 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 27 Mar 25 11:01 AM[/b]

[/quote]

Hi wouldnt it come under the "historical" scenario as taken before the act? Mind you many newspapers might be worried if it did.

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Hi
Sorry slow reply. I think the chances they still exist are better odds than winning the lottery.
Simple reason for saying that is they do not seem to be an organisation that would delete or spend the time going through their archives. They can afford good lawers.

RE: Sexual offence with no sexual motive

punter99 — Mon, 31 Mar 2025 10:39:49 GMT

[quote]

[b]JASB - 30 Mar 25 5:05 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 27 Mar 25 11:01 AM[/b]

[/quote]

Hi wouldnt it come under the "historical" scenario as taken before the act? Mind you many newspapers might be worried if it did.

[/quote]

RE: Sexual offence with no sexual motive

JASB — Sun, 30 Mar 2025 17:05:14 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 27 Mar 25 11:01 AM[/b]

[/quote]

Hi wouldnt it come under the "historical" scenario as taken before the act? Mind you many newspapers might be worried if it did.

RE: Sexual offence with no sexual motive

punter99 — Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:02:38 GMT

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 27 Mar 25 2:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 27 Mar 25 11:01 AM[/b]

[/quote]

It looks like the voyeurism law only covers the person who creates the image or causes it to be created. The sharing thing seems to be covered by the Online Safety Act. For the voyeurism, there has to be a sexual motivation for it to lead to going on the SOR. The humiliation/alarm motivation doesn't lead to notification requirements but does seem to be enough for the Online Safety Act.

[/quote]

The SOA says anyone convicted of an offence under Schedule 3 goes on the SOR. This offence (s66A) does come under schedule 3, if he receives either a custodial sentence, or a 12 month community order.

RE: Sexual offence with no sexual motive

AB2014 — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:16:39 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 27 Mar 25 11:01 AM[/b]

[/quote]