Successful defence of a man for voyeurism involving placing a spy-pen camera in the ladies’ toilet at work. His defence was that it was not done for the purposes of sexual gratification. The Defendant was initially convicted in a trial at the Magistrates’ Court and then appealed. At the conclusion of the Prosecution case, a successful submission of no case to answer was made on the ground that the charge was under the wrong section. The appeal was allowed and the Prosecution brought a fresh case with the correct charge. The Defendant was acquitted after a jury trial.
