I really have no problem with this ruling. Besides, I'd hope someone would put me out of my misery if I was caught ogling this freak.
A man has had his conviction overturned after a judge ruled that you can't ogle a man's chest – only a woman's.
Kevin Ronald Bassett was convicted of voyeurism over an April 2005 visit to Grange Paddocks baths in Bishops Stortford.
Mr Bassett was accused of ogling a male swimmer in a public pool changing room and received an 18-month supervision order in May last year.
But the alleged object of his attention was a man - and his lawyers argued that the 2003 Sexual Offences Act only relates to female breasts.
He challenged the jury's verdict on grounds that the changing room episode was not caught by the terms of the Act, under which he was charged.
Lord Justice Hughes, sitting in London's Appeal Court, said the judge at the trial at St Albans Crown Court had given the jury detailed directions on the question before they retired, but had failed to fully grapple with the issue of 'the meaning of breasts'.
His legal directions to the jury were flawed, said Lord Justice Hughes, ruling that Mr Bassett's voyeurism conviction must be quashed.
"The intention of Parliament was to mean female breasts and not an exposed male chest," Lord Justice Hughes explained.
"This Act didn't mean to refer to the male chest but only to female breasts, it follows that the judge's directions on the meaning of breasts was erroneous".
"The former are still private, amongst 21st-century bathers, the second is not".
No comments:
Post a Comment