Tony Richards (R) had filmed himself on his mobile phone having sex with two prostitutes, SD and JW, in their own bedrooms. The recordings came to the attention of the police while they were investigating R for possession of indecent photographs of children. The police had seized the phone and found the recordings, which the police suspected had been made without the consent of the women. R claimed that both women had agreed to being filmed and that he had paid more for the privilege. The two prostitutes contradicted his version of events. SD gave evidence that she enjoyed being filmed and charged more when being filmed; but on this occasion, she had not known about the filming and hence was not consenting to it. JW, on the other hand, did not agree to being filmed at all, as she was worried about recordings ending up on the Internet. R was charged with two counts of voyeurism, contrary to s 67(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the 2003 Act). This provides that ‘a person commits an offence if (a) he records another person (B) doing a private act, (b) he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and (c) he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention’. Section 68 of the 2003 Act adds that ‘For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy.’ R appeared before HHJ Lloyd-Clarke and a jury at Cardiff Crown Court in July 2019. During the trial, R submitted that there was no case to answer to a charge under s 67(3) where R was himself a participant in the private act. This was rejected by the trial judge. The jury was directed to determine whether JD and SW were in a place which would provide a reasonable expectation of privacy, and whether the acts of intercourse with R were ‘private acts’. R was convicted on both counts. R appealed, contending that JD and SW were not doing a ‘private act’ as far as he was concerned. He argued that they were not in a place which ‘would reasonably be expected to provide privacy’ from him, because he was not only in the same place (their bedrooms) with their consent but was participating in the allegedly private act.

中文翻译：

---

看着你，看着我：当偷窥者也是私人行为的参与者时，偷窥的责任：R v Richards [2020] EWCA Crim 95

托尼·理查兹 (R) 用手机拍摄了自己在自己卧室与两名妓女 SD 和 JW 发生性关系的过程。这些录音引起了警方的注意，当时他们正在调查 R 是否拥有儿童的不雅照片。警方没收了手机并找到了录音，警方怀疑这些录音是未经妇女同意而制作的。R声称两位女性都同意被拍摄，并且他为这项特权支付了更多费用。这两个妓女与他对事件的说法相矛盾。SD 提供证据表明她喜欢被拍摄并且在被拍摄时收费更高；但这一次，她不知道拍摄，因此不同意。另一方面，JW 根本不同意被拍摄，因为她担心录音会在互联网上结束。R 被指控犯有两项偷窥罪，这违反了 2003 年性犯罪法（2003 年法）第 67（3）条。该条款规定，“如果一个人（a）记录另一个人（B）做私人行为，（b）他这样做的意图是他或第三人为了获得性满足，看看 B 做这个行为的图像，并且 (c) 他知道 B 不同意他以那个意图记录这个行为”。2003 年法案第 68 条补充说，“就第 67 条而言，如果某人处于在这种情况下可以合理预期提供隐私的地方，则该人正在从事私人行为。” R 于 2019 年 7 月出现在 HHJ Lloyd-Clarke 和加的夫刑事法院的陪审团面前。 在审判期间，R 提交说，根据第 67(3) 条，R 本人是该私人行为的参与者，没有任何案件可以回应指控。这被初审法官驳回。陪审团被指示确定 JD 和 SW 是否在一个可以提供合理隐私期望的地方，以及与 R 的性交行为是否属于“私人行为”。R 因两项罪名被定罪。R 提出上诉，辩称 JD 和 SW 在他看来并不是在做“私人行为”。他辩称，他们不在一个“可以合理地期望为他提供隐私”的地方，因为他不仅在他们同意的情况下在同一个地方（他们的卧室），而且还参与了所谓的私人行为。陪审团被指示确定 JD 和 SW 是否在一个可以提供合理隐私期望的地方，以及与 R 的性交行为是否属于“私人行为”。R 因两项罪名被定罪。R 提出上诉，辩称 JD 和 SW 在他看来并不是在做“私人行为”。他辩称，他们不在一个“可以合理地期望为他提供隐私”的地方，因为他不仅在他们同意的情况下在同一个地方（他们的卧室），而且还参与了所谓的私人行为。陪审团被指示确定 JD 和 SW 是否在一个可以提供合理隐私期望的地方，以及与 R 的性交行为是否属于“私人行为”。R 因两项罪名被定罪。R 提出上诉，辩称 JD 和 SW 在他看来并不是在做“私人行为”。他辩称，他们不在一个“可以合理地期望为他提供隐私”的地方，因为他不仅在他们同意的情况下在同一个地方（他们的卧室），而且还参与了所谓的私人行为。