Upskirting Prosecutions
🔹 Overview
Upskirting is the act of secretly taking photographs or videos under a person’s clothing without their consent, usually to capture intimate parts.
It is considered:
A sexual offence
A violation of privacy
Aggravated when images are shared or distributed
In many jurisdictions, laws have been strengthened to criminalize upskirting specifically:
UK: Voyeurism Act 2019, Section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act
India: Section 66E of IT Act (violation of privacy), IPC Sections 354C (voyeurism)
USA: Various state-level voyeurism statutes
Courts generally examine:
Consent of the victim
Method of capturing images (camera, phone, hidden device)
Distribution or sharing of images
Impact on victim’s dignity and privacy
🔸 Case 1: R v. Tom Miller (UK, 2014)
Facts:
Tom Miller was caught taking photos under a woman’s skirt on a public train platform using a smartphone.
Issue:
Whether the act constitutes a criminal offence under voyeurism laws.
Judgment:
Court held that intentional photographing of private areas without consent is a sexual offence under the Voyeurism Act.
Victim’s testimony and CCTV footage were sufficient.
Outcome:
Convicted; 6 months imprisonment and registered as a sexual offender.
Legal Principle:
Upskirting constitutes a criminal sexual offence, even if no images are shared.
🔸 Case 2: State v. Rakesh Kumar (Delhi, 2016)
Facts:
Rakesh Kumar secretly installed a hidden camera in a college restroom and captured intimate images of female students.
Issue:
Whether this falls under IPC Section 354C (voyeurism) and IT Act Section 66E (privacy violation).
Judgment:
Court emphasized that secret recording in private spaces violates both criminal and cyber laws.
Evidence included recovered videos and testimonies.
Outcome:
Convicted; 5 years imprisonment and fine.
Legal Principle:
Capturing images in private spaces without consent constitutes criminal voyeurism and privacy violation.
🔸 Case 3: R v. Andrew White (UK, 2017)
Facts:
Andrew White took upskirt photos at a music festival and shared them on social media.
Issue:
Does distribution of images aggravate the offence?
Judgment:
Court ruled that sharing or distributing upskirt images significantly aggravates the offence.
Evidence from social media posts and witnesses confirmed distribution.
Outcome:
Convicted; 12 months imprisonment plus community service and restraining order.
Legal Principle:
Upskirting becomes aggravated when images are shared, posted online, or sold.
🔸 Case 4: State v. Priya Singh (Mumbai, 2018)
Facts:
Priya Singh was filmed secretly while changing clothes in a gym. The offender was caught using a hidden camera in the locker room.
Issue:
Whether filming in private changing areas constitutes voyeurism.
Judgment:
Court held that locker rooms and changing areas are private spaces, and recording violates IPC Section 354C.
The offender argued it was accidental, but evidence proved deliberate intent.
Outcome:
Convicted; 3 years imprisonment and fine.
Legal Principle:
Recording in private spaces without consent = criminal voyeurism, irrespective of motive.
🔸 Case 5: R v. Michael Johnson (Australia, 2019)
Facts:
Michael Johnson was caught using a small hidden camera in a shopping mall restroom to capture upskirt photos.
Issue:
Whether public vs. private locations affect liability.
Judgment:
Court ruled that even semi-public spaces like mall restrooms are considered private for sexual conduct.
Intention and method were critical to establishing the offence.
Outcome:
Convicted; 2 years imprisonment and mandatory counselling.
Legal Principle:
Upskirting in semi-public spaces like restrooms, changing areas, or elevators is criminally punishable.
🔸 Case 6: State v. Rohit Mehra (Delhi, 2020)
Facts:
Rohit Mehra captured videos of women on escalators using a hidden mobile phone and attempted to sell them online.
Issue:
Does intent to distribute increase severity?
Judgment:
Court held that intent to distribute, sell, or share images aggravates the offence.
IT Act Sections 66E and 67 applied alongside IPC 354C.
Outcome:
Convicted; 5 years imprisonment and fine; devices confiscated.
Legal Principle:
Upskirting plus commercial or online distribution = aggravated voyeurism and cybercrime.
🔸 Case 7: R v. Simon Brown (UK, 2021)
Facts:
Simon Brown secretly recorded female students in a university dormitory over several months.
Issue:
Does repeated, systematic recording increase sentence severity?
Judgment:
Court treated repeated offences over time as aggravating.
Evidence included multiple recovered videos and victim testimonies.
Outcome:
Convicted; 18 months imprisonment plus sexual offender registration.
Legal Principle:
Systematic and repeated upskirting = enhanced punishment, reflecting persistent violation of privacy.
🔹 Key Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Consent is essential | Any recording under clothing without consent = criminal offence. |
| Private vs. semi-public | Restrooms, changing areas, elevators = private for voyeurism law purposes. |
| Distribution aggravates offence | Sharing, selling, or posting images online increases severity. |
| Repeated acts = enhanced sentence | Systematic, repeated offences are treated more severely. |
| Digital evidence admissible | Cameras, phones, social media posts can prove offence. |
| Intention matters | Deliberate and premeditated recording = higher culpability. |
🔹 Conclusion
Upskirting prosecutions highlight:
Protection of privacy as a legal right
Consent and intent as central to liability
Aggravating factors: sharing, repeated acts, commercial use
Evidence: victim testimony, CCTV, and digital recovery
RELATED Blog
0 comments