I took private pictures of my ex girlfriend in my bedroom without her knowledge and the pictures were of her changing clothes. She is long gone and never knew about this. Now these pictures were accidentally discovered by my employer and he is threatening to take legal action. Given that the woman is not involved is there a legal ground for filing criminal charges against me just from the videos. I have never shared or distributed this content to anyone. Can i be charged under the current laws without the girl being witness or complainant in the case. I must admit that i really regret doing this but it was never mesnt to do her any harm
Making and keeping private videos
- Thread starter Vg kapur
- Start date
Yes, you will be charged, no need for the person in the video to make the complaint. It is illegal to video and/or audio record without the other person's consent.
In the start you stated taking picture and then you mentioned video recording, so what was it?
I disagree. It's all about consent and without a complaint from the girl herself, there is no evidence regarding consent (or lack thereof) for Police to act on.
But with that said, I am also curious about the discrepancies - and not just the picture/video aspect. If you didn't share this content with anyone, then how on earth was this "accidently discovered" by your employer of all people?
It would also help to know what state you're in too because the laws vary from state to state.
But with that said, I am also curious about the discrepancies - and not just the picture/video aspect. If you didn't share this content with anyone, then how on earth was this "accidently discovered" by your employer of all people?
It would also help to know what state you're in too because the laws vary from state to state.
You are assuming the woman will not react, when she finds out that this happened (as the poster stated without her knowledge), I don't think she would stay quite, once it is reported to police, the police would investigate and talk to the woman, if she says it was with her consent, then there is a no problem but I would doubt very much she would say she gave consent.
There is an issue of who made the compliant, although not by the woman herself, but in this case, I would think the police would investigate than just let it go. I am not sure about this point.
The only way that an audio or video recording is legal is either by consent of the parties involved or without the consent or knowledge of the other party in a case where the person who took the recording is defending their self's rights and reported only to the court or police (or other legal authorised agency). This is based on my understanding and I am not a lawyer.
As much as can be correctly said here is that yes, you can be charged.
Whether or not you will be charged is a case specific operational policing decision
about which @Adam1user can have no reliable knowledge.
Now, let's say, for the purpose of discussion, that the act(s) took place in NSW.
In NSW, a person who does acts like those you're asking about
can be prosecuted for (at least) the offence called (for short)
"Filming A Person Engaged In A Private Act".
Subject to the facts and circumstances, further offences relating to unlawful use of surveillance devices
could also be on the table.
Understand that, as matter of legal definition, "filming" also means stills.
Let's also be clear about a couple of other things.
1. A person can't consent to something that they didn't know was happening.
Which means, as a matter of logic, that they cannot consent retrospectively ("after the event") either.
2. It doesn't matter if the person depicted/ recorded ever complains or not - the offences are still on the table.
3. If an accused contacts the person in the images/ footage, and tries to persuade them
to lie (say, to police) for the accused's benefit (such as by saying they knew, and/or consented),
then there is the possibility of separate, additonal, offences involving influencing witnesses,
and perverting the course of justice.
Lastly - if the worst thing that happens is that you lose your job (for, say, using company property to commit what might be offences), take that as a lucky escape.
Tim is back to show me wrong! Tim if you read the poster's comment (that is something you seem not to do often), the poster took pictures of the woman changing and not in the park or walking in the street, if it was pictures/video of the woman walking in the street, then the police may not charge the poster, but in this specific case where the poster took pictures/video of the woman changing (without letting us know if there were nude pictures/video), I seriously doubt that the police will let the poster go without being charged. In general terms, you are right the police will decide whether to proceed with the compliant or not, but in this case, I believe that the police will proceed with the compliant and charge.
Thanks for the long post.
I think there's too many assumptions being made here. The OP needs to claify a few things before we can provide opinion of any value.
1. The OP didn't share the pictures with anyone, so again, how did the employer find out? This is very important because the employer could have been acting illegally when they found the pictures. We simply don't know.
2. There is no indication of what the employer acually knows, other than knowing that the pictures exist. The OP has told us who the woman is and that there was no consent, but that doesn't mean that the employer knows that. The OP needs to clarify - what does the employer actually know?
In regards to @Tim W's NSW example, the Surveillance Devices Act could only apply if:
1. for video, the video was made on a property other than the OP's (Section 8); and/or
2. for audio, the OP recorded a conversation that he was not a principle party to and the conversation involved more than one person (Section 7). (In other words, the SDA doesn't apply if she was alone and talking to herself - this is because of the definition of "private conversation" in Section 4.)
In short, we need to know the circumstances surrounding how the employer found out about it and what he actually knows. Until we know that, everything is guesswork based on too many assumptions.
1. The OP didn't share the pictures with anyone, so again, how did the employer find out? This is very important because the employer could have been acting illegally when they found the pictures. We simply don't know.
2. There is no indication of what the employer acually knows, other than knowing that the pictures exist. The OP has told us who the woman is and that there was no consent, but that doesn't mean that the employer knows that. The OP needs to clarify - what does the employer actually know?
In regards to @Tim W's NSW example, the Surveillance Devices Act could only apply if:
1. for video, the video was made on a property other than the OP's (Section 8); and/or
2. for audio, the OP recorded a conversation that he was not a principle party to and the conversation involved more than one person (Section 7). (In other words, the SDA doesn't apply if she was alone and talking to herself - this is because of the definition of "private conversation" in Section 4.)
In short, we need to know the circumstances surrounding how the employer found out about it and what he actually knows. Until we know that, everything is guesswork based on too many assumptions.
Yeah. Those aspects are among the "facts and circumstances" I was referring to
in the bit about
Of course, any good defence will have submissons ready on the nature of both entry and consent in this context.
Again, yeah.Scruff also said:
In this thread, we are, as ever, limited by generalities, missing facts, undisclosed context and circumstances,
and by being unable to consider all the unstated ifs, buts, exceptions, and unlesses.
Hence the extensive disclaimers in signatures, and often, in the body text of posts, the highly conditional language; and why the actual here lawyers sometimes become impatient when ignorant laymen say things like "will be charged..." without any basis.
For the benefit of lay readers and those who read this later, as to...
I agree that it would be helpful if we knew, for example, whether or not the phone was provided by the employer - so to speak, a "company phone", or was OP's personal phone.
If it was the employer's phone, then it is settled law that they can inspect it at any time.
By contrast, things could unfold differently if...
- somebody accidentally sees something on the screen of a personal phone; or
- if something is seen/ found by somebody "going through" (without consent)
a personal phone left unattended on a desk;
You went way out of the poster's main point, all those events that you are referring to, will not change the end outcome of police will charge the poster for taking illegal pictures/videos of the victim.