Voyeur filmed women from camera hidden in bathroom

Voyeur filmed women from camera hidden in bathroom

10 August 2016

A NEWCASTLE man who hid a camera in his bathroom to film family members has been sentenced to 100 hours community service.

The married man, who is in his 40s but cannot be named to protect the identity of his three victims, was also sentenced to nine months probation at Downpatrick Court for his “shameful and disgusting behaviour.”

The court heard he had hidden a recording camera in a bottle of shower gel, which he then strategically placed in his bathroom on an unknown date between December 2013 and February 2015.

He admitted voyeurism to police after being confronted by a relative who found the camera.

He said he had set the camera up between six and 10 times to record a female relative and d images in which he was not interested. Police discovered recordings of three female relatives using the toilet during the course of their investigation.

A defence barrister said it was impossible to convey the “shame, embarrassment and guilt” the defendant had suffered as well as the humiliation of his victims, particularly his sister-in-law who was described as the “subject of this foolhardy and shameful enterprise.”

He said the defendant was so agitated when he went to the police station that they thought he might have been about to confess to a murder, while his victims were reluctant to become involved in the investigation because of their own embarrassment.

“He did not seek to duck what were extremely embarrassing and humiliating points put to him,” he said. 

“Persons involved did not really want to become involved as they found it embarrassing due to their positions in the community.

“His entire life, as have the lives of everyone involved in the case, has been turned upside down.”

The court heard that the defendant temporarily moved away from the area after the offence to give his family, including his wife, space to recover from the incident.

While the barrister said the defendant was not the first man to be drawn to the idea of secretly filming someone, he accepted it was “a shameful thing.”

“He has been beside himself for months, terrified about the outcome of this case,” he said.

Accepting that the defendant had pleaded guilty at an early stage, Deputy District Judge Peter Prenter emphasised that the voyeurism in this case was pre-meditated.

“This case is one of shameful and disgusting behaviour on part of the defendant,” he said.

“It is a gross abuse of privacy. It is my view this man is clearly in need of therapy.”