Three years' jail proposed for high-tech voyeurs

3.00pm - By SIMON RANDALL

Secretly filming people in intimate situations without their consent should see voyeurs jailed for up to three years, the Law Commission recommends in a report released today.

The commission says making, distributing and possessing covertly filmed images "of a very intimate nature" should be made criminal offences.

It recommends maximum jail terms of three years for making and publishing voyeuristic recordings and 12 months for possessing material known to be illegally filmed.

Courts should be allowed to order forfeiture and destruction of images and equipment and subjects of the filming should be allowed to seek redress through the civil justice system.

"Where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, they should have legal recourse if they are secretly photographed when they are in a state of undress, or engaged in sexual activity, or other intimate bodily activity, such as using a toilet," commission president Justice Robertson said today.

"This is a serious invasion of privacy and an affront to human dignity. So too is secretly photographing underneath people's clothing -- so-called 'up-skirt' filming," Justice Robertson said in a statement.

Existing law did not cover this conduct adequately, the commission found.

The report answers a government request for advice on law changes to deal with covert filming, which has increased dramatically in recent years with the arrival of smaller cameras and video recorders and cellphones that take pictures and transmit pictures.

Voyeurs have targeted places such as gyms, swimming pools, and toilets and changing rooms, to secretly film people.

The commission says covert filming is "filming people in intimate situations without their knowledge or consent, and includes the distribution of the images".

The Government asked the commission to look at covert filming, in particular when it involved nudity, partial nudity, and physical or bodily intimacy, when people had a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

The commission recommends the Privacy Act 1993 should be amended so that all conduct covered by the new offences could be dealt with as breach of privacy complaints, and to allow forfeiture of images and equipment.

An Appeal Court ruling in March on broadcaster Mike Hosking's bid to stop a magazine publishing photos of his children gives subjects of covert filming another option for pursuing privacy breaches, the commission says.

Covert filming differs from traditional "peeping Tom" invasion of privacy because it results in permanent images that can be duplicated and distributed. Photographs can also reveal more than can be seen through casual observation, the report says.

"Covert filming of people in intimate situations, and distribution of the images, will often have a sexual element, but not always. It will, however, always constitute an invasion of privacy..." it says.

It can also have serious consequences for the film's subjects.

The commission says it has not recommended a special provision covering the vulnerability of children, which it notes is of particular concern, because courts cover that when considering aggravating factors at sentencing.

- NZPA