SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this
I am absolutely pleased to speak on behalf of the National Party in support of the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill—[ Interruption] no, I could not possibly; not when the whip is around—particularly when just this week a man was apprehended in a Farmer’s store using a cellphone to take photographs looking up women’s dresses. How did he do that? All he had to do was to bend down and pretend to do up his shoelaces or undertake another seemingly innocent activity, stretch out with the cellphone in his hand between the women’s legs, and snap. The irony is that he, in turn, was snapped while doing the snapping. Would members believe that neither of the women involved was aware of anything happening? In fact, the man had the gall to follow them to the next shop, to take more pictures. By that time security guards had alerted the police, and the man was then apprehended. He was found guilty of two charges of committing an indecent act, with the jury taking only 12 minutes to reach its verdict.
In yet another case, a man was jailed for 18 months for filming up women’s skirts on 23 occasions. He told the judge that he was possessed by evil spirits. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable.
This bill will ensure that any covert filming of people in intimate situations without their knowledge or consent, when they believe themselves to be in a private situation, is unlawful. People who find that they have their moments of privacy invaded by voyeuristic filming must have recourse to the law, to protect themselves against such activity. The advance of technology has allowed the voyeur to evolve from the general concept of the peeping Tom to a far more menacing predator, young or old, who utilises modern devices for purposes neither anticipated nor intended originally. Although voyeurism is an offence in itself, such activity has the potential to lead to much more serious offending.
The Law Commission quite rightly recommended that the courts have the power to order that anyone apprehended and convicted for undertaking covert filming have the images destroyed and any equipment used forfeited to the Crown. One of the worst aspects of covert filming is the speed with which images can be disseminated by way of the Internet. That can happen in spite of apprehending and prosecuting any offender, because of the ability to publish in real time through live broadcast. What is the penalty for that? It is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years. I have no doubt that victims would want more than that, after having their privacy defiled by some perverted creep. A variety of other penalties are imposed for the publication, exportation, or sale of intimate visual recordings, with the emphasis being on “visual”. Concern has been expressed in the House by my excellent colleague Chester Borrows about the absence of a penalty for audio recordings. For that and other reasons, National has no doubt that further amendments to the principal Act may be needed in the future.
The Law Commission’s recommendation has been well known to the courts since its publication in June 2005. An 18-year-old builder who was caught while filming a lady in a public toilet would have been dealt with much more severely under this legislation than he was. In sentencing the offender, the judge made reference to the Law Commission’s paper. Her comments made it quite clear that the offender should count himself lucky that this legislation had not been enacted.
It is worth noting that the offences in the bill relate to intimacy or nudity. As such, covert filming like that of Princess Diana in the gym would be unlikely to be an offence, even though it was done in secret, because it was not seen as being an intimate or nude situation. In spite of that, some gyms and swimming pools ban cellphones from changing rooms. Although such filming may not be a prosecutable offence, it is still an invasion of privacy—and, of course, it is not good for business.
Where people agree to be filmed in intimate or nude situations, there is no case to answer. They then take responsibility for their behaviour and for the risk of any intimate filming being used for unintended purposes at a later date.
Hon David Benson-PopeI shall ignore the unseemly comments from the Government side of the House.
One of the matters the Law Commission chose not to consider was the wider issue of the covert filming of people involved in non-intimate activities, such as walking, talking, or reading in a library. In one such case, which went as far as the Court of Appeal, a man was found guilty of offensive behaviour for taking more than 100 pictures from inside his van of girls walking to school. In spite of the pictures not being obscene or objectionable, he was still found guilty. In another instance, the very same man was fined in the District Court for filming young women in a library. Again, he was convicted of offensive behaviour, because even though the pictures themselves were not obscene or objectionable in the general sense, the behaviour was still deemed to be offensive.
One of the more serious aspects of covert filming is the use of cellphones by child pornographers. As one commentator said, from the child’s position it just looks as though someone is checking his or her phone. Modern electronics have transformed the activities of the peeping Tom into a booming, perverse, online industry where images are endlessly in demand, replicated, manipulated, and distributed. The technology is relatively inexpensive and easy to access. Camera cellphones, high-tech recording equipment such as pinhole cameras, and long-range lenses have transformed our concept of the peeping Tom into a whole new category of criminal behaviour. There are instances of that in New Zealand: a video camera hidden in a bedroom to take images of two girls changing before going to bed, a technician installing a hidden camera in an operatic society’s dressing room, a video taken from behind a one-way mirror of boys getting changed for swimming, and a gang member in court using his cellphone to take pictures of the jury. More and more of those stories are occurring.
National supports the passage of this bill, in spite of it having some shortcomings, because we believe that it is important for the protection of people’s intimate and private moments. We believe that covert filming, as identified in this bill, should no longer escape the long arm of the law, and that victims should have access to justice for the invasion of their privacy.