Man who 'filmed naked sleeping woman' in 2015 now facing prosecution

A man who was not charged for allegedly filming a naked sleeping woman might now face prosecution after senior judges clarified the law on voyeurism.

The Crown Prosecution (CPS) had decided to not bring a prosecution against the man, who was accused of filming Emily Hunt naked and unconscious without her consent in May 2015.

Ms Hunt launched a legal challenge last year against the CPS over the decision and raised money to fund her case through the CrowdJustice website.

The Centre for Women's Justice (CWJ) - which represented Ms Hunt - has now said the CPS will no longer oppose her challenge and will review its earlier decision.

It follows a Court of Appeal ruling in a different case on Tuesday.

Ms Hunt said in a statement that she now has hope the man who allegedly filmed her will "see justice and consequences for his actions" after nearly five years of fighting her case.

She continued: "This decision was the clear, obvious and common sense answer to a question that no-one else was asking: is it illegal to video someone naked without their consent?

"Because the answer is obvious: yes, yes it is. And today the court agreed."

Three senior judges have since clarified the law on voyeurism - an offence under the Sexual Offences Act - during a ruling in an appeal brought by Tony Richards.

Richards, 40, from Cardiff, was jailed for 15 months after being found guilty of two counts of voyeurism over secretly filming himself having sex with prostitutes and admitting three counts of possessing indecent images of children.

His lawyers argued he was not guilty of his voyeurism convictions because the filming had taken place in a private setting.

Dismissing his appeal, Lord Justice Fulford said those he filmed had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Ms Hunt was given permission by the court to intervene in the case after the CWJ learned that the CPS would be opposing Richards' appeal.

Her solicitor Kate Ellis said: "We welcome today's decision and trust that the CPS who have fought this for so long will finally bring this man to justice."

CWJ director Harriet Wistrich said: "We would like to know why the CPS chose to argue opposite points in two separate cases.

"As a publicly funded body, they have a duty to act consistently and in the public interest."

A CPS spokesman said: "What constitutes a 'private act' for the purposes of the offence of voyeurism had never been conclusively defined by a higher court until today.

"The CPS does not make or decide the law - that is the remit of parliament and the courts respectively.

"Now that this new authoritative judgement has clarified this point of law, the CPS will review its position in the judicial review brought by Emily Hunt."