Man Convicted Of Taking Pictures Of Women Without Consent

Keith W

Keith W

Messages
7,408
Edit My Images
Yes
Man Convicted Of Taking Pictures Of Women Without Consent

BBC News said:
An Aberdeen man has admitted taking more than 70,000 photos of women walking past his flat.

Oil worker Andrew Lawrence, 45, admitted breach of the peace by taking the shots without their permission.

Police uncovered 71,600 images on his laptop and camera when they confronted him following a tip-off.

Sentence was deferred for background reports. Lawrence was placed on the sex offenders register and released on bail.
Click to expand...



The above linked story caught my eye so thought I would share.

I can't help thinking there is more to this story than being reported in the article.

I say this because just taking pictures of people from your own property is not illegal, right?

Or has the law changed and we are now at risk of ending up on the sex offenders register?

Discuss.....
 
There has to be more to it than that, surely?

just taking photos of people in a public setting?

He's admitted there was a sexual element to it though - its kind of a reverse peeping Tom, instead of being somewhere public and peeping at somewhere private, he's done it the other way round. Very odd! No accounting for tastes!
 
I have a hatred for reporting like this as there is such a lack if information there such as they could have said that it's not actually illegal to take a picture of someone without there permission, the way that story has been written and published reads very dangerously for those that no little to nothing about photography and the law :(

I can see this story causing more and more issues for those that love candid/street photography :(
 
MWHCVT said:
I have a hatred for reporting like this as there is such a lack if information there such as they could have said that it's not actually illegal to take a picture of someone without there permission, the way that story has been written and published reads very dangerously for those that no little to nothing about photography and the law :(

I can see this story causing more and more issues for those that love candid/street photography :(
Click to expand...

Exactly so. It can only result in making things more difficult for us.
 
MWHCVT said:
I have a hatred for reporting like this as there is such a lack if information there such as they could have said that it's not actually illegal to take a picture of someone without there permission, the way that story has been written and published reads very dangerously for those that no little to nothing about photography and the law :(

I can see this story causing more and more issues for those that love candid/street photography :(
Click to expand...

Agree!!!! Ill be making a phone call to the BBC!

Edit: just made a phone call explaining that this article mentions nothing about it being legal to take a photo of someone in a public place and that they should include an educational aspect to it. Just a basic sentence would do the job.

I explained that being a street photographer (which I'm not but was hoping to try some out) can all ready be a hostile situation. (I've heard stories) if people believe that it is breech of the peace to do so then street photography could become an even more hostile subject right?

This guy was not a photographer! He took photos of woman after purchasing a camera to go on holiday! He done this for pure sexual satisfaction and nothing else! Right?
 
Last edited:
He must live on a busy street, that's a shed load of images .....
 
Lawrence was placed on the sex offenders register and released on bail
Click to expand...

So this is not simply a case of taking photos of people on the street, e.g. street photography, this has to be some sort of 'improper' activity.
 
It's nearly 200 images a day, every day, for two years. Right.

Complaint sent - please do likewise.
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT said:
I have a hatred for reporting like this as there is such a lack if information there such as they could have said that it's not actually illegal to take a picture of someone without there permission, the way that story has been written and published reads very dangerously for those that no little to nothing about photography and the law :(

I can see this story causing more and more issues for those that love candid/street photography :(
Click to expand...

In full adgreedment,seem one of those odd story that need more details :shrug:
 
I don't see what you're all getting steamed up about. He's not been charged with taking pics in the street, he's been charged with a breach of the peace.........and admitted it.

It clearly states in the article "Defence agent Liam Mcallister said Lawrence admitted there was a sexual element to the offending".

As for more details, what more do you want to know.............................dirty old men! :LOL:
 
artyman said:
Was this a basement flat, and what was the angle used? that may have some bearing on this.
Click to expand...

No, it was a first floor flat so more than likely 'cleavage' shots. :)
 
Scottish law can be odd, especially with Breach of the Peace (which is a rather more of a catch-all common-law offence in Scotland than it is south of the border).

It seems there's a "sexual breach of the peace" class of offences [St Andrews University: Police Advice from Fife Constabulary], which can lead to those convicted being placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

"sexual" BoP was used in 2007 to convict a man having sex with a bicycle in a hotel room after he was caught by two cleaners who walked in on him.

edit:

Presumably, either

a) there was not enough evidence to convict him under the Voyeurism provisions of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 [BoP was used for such offences before this became statue in Scotland]

or

b) he agreed to plea guilty to BoP to avoid a charge under that act.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if he hadnt taken any photos,but just looked at women passing by from his flat,and addmitted their was some sexual element to his watching would he be in the same trouble :thinking:
 
simonblue said:
I wonder if he hadnt taken any photos,but just looked at women passing by from his flat,and addmitted their was some sexual element to his watching would he be in the same trouble :thinking:
Click to expand...

Of course he would.
 
admirable said:
I don't see what you're all getting steamed up about. He's not been charged with taking pics in the street, he's been charged with a breach of the peace.........and admitted it.

It clearly states in the article "Defence agent Liam Mcallister said Lawrence admitted there was a sexual element to the offending".

As for more details, what more do you want to know.............................dirty old men! :LOL:
Click to expand...

The point is, the Beeb are reporting that the alleged offence was
admitted breach of the peace by taking the shots without their permission
Click to expand...
with the clear implication that by failing to obtain permission of people walking down a street he was committing an offence simply by pressing the shutter button. If this is upheld, ever person who takes a photo of any other person, anywhere, without their permission, may be open to prosecution. 'Behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace' is (in English law, not sure about Scottish) a sort of catch all (sections 4&5 of the Public Order Act, I think). The actual act of taking the photo shouldn't be illegal, but if he is using a camera for voyeuristic purposes, that's very different and the report should make this clear.
 
jon ryan said:
The point is, the Beeb are reporting that the alleged offence was with the clear implication that by failing to obtain permission of people walking down a street he was committing an offence simply by pressing the shutter button. If this is upheld, ever person who takes a photo of any other person, anywhere, without their permission, may be open to prosecution. 'Behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace' is (in English law, not sure about Scottish) a sort of catch all (sections 4&5 of the Public Order Act, I think). The actual act of taking the photo shouldn't be illegal, but if he is using a camera for voyeuristic purposes, that's very different and the report should make this clear.
Click to expand...

Yes but it goes on to say 'there was a sexual element to the offending'.
 
jon ryan said:
It's nearly 200 images a day, every day, for two years. Right.

Complaint sent - please do likewise.
Click to expand...

Jon, how did you sent your complaint was it via email our webform etc? please post some details as I too would like to send in a complaint
 
admirable said:
Yes but it goes on to say 'there was a sexual element to the offending'.
Click to expand...

Even then though it would be interesting to see when this becomes an offence, I'm guessing for example people taking pics on there phone of others during night out often has a "sexual element" involved.
 
Last edited:
I've taken considerably more than 70,000 photos of people, of subject ages ranging from a few minutes to 110. Should I be on a register?
 
PJ S said:
(y)
Good link, Nod. Certainly agree with a number of the views expressed there.
Does pose a possible dangerous precedent being set.
Click to expand...


Norton just blocked a malicious attack from this link on my PC :eek:

(the top one )


Heather
 
Last edited:
The policespecials.com one?
False positive - I would trust Norton only as far as I could throw it.
It lives on false positives to scaremonger users into keeping it.
Ditch it, as it's a resource hog, and use NOD32 instead.
 
what probably happened is that somone has seen him take pictures they have asked him to stop. if he does not stop then that would constitute breach of the peace in scotland.
 
jon ryan said:
'Behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace' is (in English law, not sure about Scottish) a sort of catch all (sections 4&5 of the Public Order Act, I think).
Click to expand...

Apparently it's quite different is Scottish Law. You can actually be arrested and convicted of a breach of the peace in Scotland. The Scots Law definition of a breach of the peace is "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community." To prove a Breach of the Peace the most important things to prove is that someone was Alarmed, Annoyed or Disturbed by the incident. And you can commit a breach anywhere - even in your own home.
 
POAH said:
what probably happened is that somone has seen him take pictures they have asked him to stop. if he does not stop then that would constitute breach of the peace in scotland.
Click to expand...

hollis_f said:
Apparently it's quite different is Scottish Law. You can actually be arrested and convicted of a breach of the peace in Scotland. The Scots Law definition of a breach of the peace is "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community." To prove a Breach of the Peace the most important things to prove is that someone was Alarmed, Annoyed or Disturbed by the incident. And you can commit a breach anywhere - even in your own home.
Click to expand...

The 'sexual' element means that this wasn't a simple BofTP.
 
I'm sure there is a mention in the photographers right PDF thingy about taking pics outside and possible breach of the peace issues.

I'll see if I can dig it out.
 
jon ryan said:
I've taken considerably more than 70,000 photos of people, of subject ages ranging from a few minutes to 110. Should I be on a register?
Click to expand...

did you take them while masturbating , and then post the pictures on line with explicitly sexual comments ? ( I'm not saying that the person in the OP did either , but i bet theres more to it than reported)
 
I don't believe the 70,000 figure for a min, we only have around 120k published images over 6 years, and we shoot 8 hrs a day....
 
Studi0488 said:
I don't believe the 70,000 figure for a min, we only have around 120k published images over 6 years, and we shoot 8 hrs a day....
Click to expand...

Yes but how many have you binned?
 
gramps said:
The 'sexual' element means that this wasn't a simple BofTP.
Click to expand...

Gramps, there's nothing 'simple' about BoP in Scots law. It's a broadly drawn common law offence, frequently used for nuisance value cases, but it can also have very serious implications and carry a life sentence. Rare, but possible.
 
POAH said:
it does if thats what the sherriff accepted a plea on.
Click to expand...

Unless things are VERY different in Scotland this can't happen for a simple BofTP!
Lawrence was placed on the sex offenders register and released on bail.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top