Please Help

[minus]

I was accused of sexual battery by a girlfriend who said we had never had intercourse before that day . I provided the detective a tape of us having consensual sex months before the day in question . the detective is saying now that he believes the tape was taken without her knowledge,but now says he knows she has lied to him and falsified a police report . He says he can arrest her for this but says she may not see any time or reverse charges . so what he has told me is that i will be booked and fined for video voyerism and she will walk away. what can i do this is wrong

[Casehardened]

I don't know your circumstances and it depends on how you feel about it but, if your girlfriend was not underage when you made the video and you are prepared to go to court, then I would stand up to them.

You can't be 'booked and fined' without appearing in front of the magistates, though they might offer you a police caution to get them off this hook!

After all the question of consent with regard to the making of the video will be word-against-word & she's already a proven liar.

I suspect the dectective is wriggling as he has been taken in & hoping you will say that you don't want to take it any further

[Rights Fighter]

If the girl did not know that she was being video'd then he is guilty "Video voyeurism" (if there is such a crime) - I am sure there is another term for that.

It is often easy to tell whether the person who is being video'd knew about it often because they will deliberately pose for the camera.

I think that the "booking and fining" can actually occur by way of a caution. some offences can be fined "on the spot" as we know.

She may well be lying about the alleged assault but if she is found to be lying about that, does not mean that she is lying about the video recording. it certainly would not go towards her credibility if the matter went to trial but it seems this is not going to happen anyway.

[Casehardened]

If the girl did not know that she was being video'd then he is guilty "Video voyeurism" (if there is such a crime) - I am sure there is another term for that.

I

Everything is a crime if there's a possibility sex might come into it!!!

SOA 2003 Section 67 Voyeurism

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.

Obviously very important not to let it get to CC

[Rights Fighter]

Everything is a crime if there's a possibility sex might come into it!!!

SOA 2003 Section 67 Voyeurism

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.

Obviously very important not to let it get to CC

"Everything is a crime if there's a possibility that" non-consensual "sex might come into it!!!"

[LS]

Hi

If I've read this right, it's in his interests to avoid cc. That's okay as long as they don't try to give him a caution for the voyeurism, as doesn't that count as a conviction these days? It seems like jumping out of the frying pan,

[friday]

i have been the victim of video voyeurism (but thats a whole new can of worms) but was told by the police that there was no point trying to get him done for it as it was my word against his (despite the camera being hidden in the ceiling). if this was the polices view on my incident then i don't see why they are saying something different to you. can they prove she was unaware of the camera? funny how this 'her word against his' thing has remarkable similarities to many rape cases. if they are willing to go to court on her word alone about her allegation of rape then why aren't they willing to do the same for the allegation of video voyeurism? although of course that is a dangerous path to tread as you could be convicted of both.

[Casehardened]

Hi

If I've read this right, it's in his interests to avoid cc. That's okay as long as they don't try to give him a caution for the voyeurism, as doesn't that count as a conviction these days? It seems like jumping out of the frying pan,

Yes, you're quite correct, to get a caution the offence has to be admitted & goes down on the record. However the caution doesn't involve a penalty (apart from going on the SOR?, not sure about this)

I suppose it's a judgement call; does one confess to something one hasn't done or take the chance of an aquittal in court.

As you already know, if the decision is down to a jury, who knows what will happen.

[Rights Fighter]

We do not know whether the woman in question knew that she was being filmed. That is the crux of the matter.

Friday, laws and rulings keep changing all the time so it's possible that protocols relating to voyeurism have changed since what happened to you.

A caution will show on his ECRB.

[friday]

rights fighter-i spoke to the police a couple of months ago and it only happened about 2 years ago. guess there is just no consistency (plus its hard to prove, takes up time and doesn't get the same press as other crimes).

minus-you haven't told us whether she consented to being filmed and to be honest if she didn't (and you accept that and get a caution) it would certainly make me think that if a person wouldn't bother getting consent for filming a person during sex would they necessarily care about whether a person consented to sex (remember that one instance of consensual sex does not mean that a person will consent the next time. there a lots if reasons why a person my choose not to have sex with a person they have already slept with)

[LS]

(apart from going on the SOR?, not sure about this)

That's the impression I'm under, which makes the SOR a penalty in itself, which is why I thought taking the caution (and the SOR ie penalty) may not be such a good move.

[Rights Fighter]

The SOR is not a penalty or part of the sentence.

The idea behind it, is an attempt to protect the public, after Ian Huntly, who murdered the two little girls in Soham was brought to justice. He was known to the authorities having had numerous allegations made against him but no real record of that.

[LS]

Thanks RF, I understand what you mean it's not part of the penalty or the fine, but if Minus is innocent, then to him just being on the SOR is a huge penalty. As someone who is on SOR, the restrictions it places on you makes it a large penalty. To me, more so than the prison sentence. If I were in Minus' position, I would give very careful thought to the pros and cons of accepting a Caution, as the "punishment" may be just as harsh (SOR) as being convicted and sentenced.

[Casehardened]

Wish we could hear from Minus again as I muddied the waters with mention of a caution, not he

LifeSucks,

Interesting that you should say that the SOR is as much as a punishment as the sentence itself as I've thought this; it's as if one is still not at liberty.

(I did look it up and it would seem that a SOR entry is not automatic with a caution but discretionary on the part of the police officer administering the caution)

[LS]

Casehardened, quite. From my own experience one virtually lives in the copshop. U have to report there at least once a year in any event to update their records by having your photo and pawprints taken and to state your address, phone & mobile(s) numbers, National Insurance number, and possibly any emails. The latter was mooted as a suggestion, so don't kno if law yet but when I changed address in the last year all I had to give was name/address/phone/offence and court.

In addition, if you stay anywhere other than your home address for any 7 (non-consecutive) days in a 12-month period, there's another visit. And if any details change, there's also anoter visit. Also if you plan to go abroad you have to inform them 3-7days in advance.

I had more freedom in prison. Oh, and I've seen firsthand a police officer's definition of "discretionary." It's usually geared towards what's of benefit to the officer, not us.