Under new law, 鈥渋t would also allow this intrusive behaviour to be treated as a sexual offence, ensure that the most serious offenders are made subject to notification requirements (commonly referred to as the 鈥榮ex offenders register鈥)鈥 (Gov.org) and; would capture instances where the purpose is to obtain sexual gratification or cause humiliation, distress or alarm. The new punishment for upskirting is two years imprisonment and a place on the 鈥榮ex offenders register.鈥 This change does not merely impact upon the stringency of punishment; the new bill will be much more victim centric and reflect the feelings of the vulnerable. Previous to the change, upskirting was typically prosecuted under the lens of public indecency, that is to say, the impact of upskirting on the general public rather than the victim who has been harassed. New laws however, reflect the disturbing and upsetting aspect of upskirting, and provide victims with an appropriate channel to pursue their claim.
In this article, we speak with Ryan Whelan, the lawyer behind the campaign, to discuss the promising future of this bill and what the change means for: practitioners, victims and society at large.
As underlined in the Provisions of the Bill, published by parliament in a research briefing, the amendment would result in several key changes. To read the bill in full,
鈥淭he bill, as introduced in the House of Lords, seeks to amend section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, by inserting two new offences covering the practice of upskirting.
New section 67A subsection 1 would mean that a person (A) commits an offence if they operate equipment beneath the clothing of another person (B) to allow either themselves or another person (C) to observe person B鈥檚 genitals or buttocks or the underwear covering them, in circumstances in which they would otherwise not be visible.
Subsection 2 mirrors the provisions of subsection 1 and would mean that a person committed an offence where a person (A) records an image beneath the clothing of another person (B) which is of B鈥檚 genitals or buttocks, or the underwear covering B鈥檚 genitals or buttocks, in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would otherwise not be visible.
For both offences person A would operate equipment or record an image without B鈥檚 consent and without reasonably believing that B consented. In addition, under subsection 3 the purpose of person A in operating equipment (subsection 1) or recording an image (subsection 2) must be:
鈥 obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C);
鈥 humiliating, alarming or distressing B.
The new offences would be triable either way. The maximum sentence following summary conviction (in a magistrate鈥檚 court) would be twelve months鈥 imprisonment, or a fine, or both. The maximum sentence following conviction on indictment (at the crown court) would be two years鈥 imprisonment.
The bill would also allow that in certain circumstances offenders could be placed on the sex offenders register. These circumstances are:
鈥 For offenders aged over 18-years old: the offence was committed for sexual gratification and either the victim was under 18, or the offender has been sentenced to imprisonment; or detained in hospital; or made the subject of a community sentence of at least twelve months.
鈥 For offenders aged under 18-years old: the offence was committed for sexual gratification and the offender is or has been sentenced to imprisonment for at least twelve months.
The bill would apply to England and Wales; it would come into force at the end of the period of two months after royal assent.
The difficulty was in building political momentum. The gap in the law on upskirting is not one that we discovered. It had been raised many times in the past, including by the Law Commission. The fact that calls for action had always fallen on deaf ears was not particularly surprising. The Ministry of Justice has a wide portfolio and many fires to fight. What we did was make sure our 鈥渁sk鈥 was not only right in law but politically expedient. This set the campaign apart and ensured its success.
The GQ statistic is shocking. My hope is that the sample does not truly reflect public opinion. Happily, my experience is that the vast majority of people think as they should, that the non-consensual taking of images under a person鈥檚 clothing is a violation and should be punishable by law. Those who seriously consider upskirting to be anything other than that strike me as not right thinking.
Whether there will be an upturn in prosecutions will be seen in due course. As to justice, that is a subjective and amorphous concept. Whether a particular disposal gives a victim any sense of justice will vary from case to case. However, what the new law will ensure is that upskirters can be prosecuted appropriately. For example, rather than be prosecuted under the common law offence of outraging public decency, upskirters who are motivated by sexual gratification or to cause humiliation, distress or alarm, will be prosecuted under the new statutory voyeurism offences being introduced at Section 67A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The maximum sentence following conviction on indictment will be two years and/or a fine. To ensure public protection, offenders who are convicted in particularly serious circumstances could be placed on the sex offenders register.
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234