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?

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.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

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. 

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

Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

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.