Peace Bond - Voyeurism Charges Withdrawn

Ms. Williamson recently represented a man charged with voyeurism under section 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. In this case, the charged stemmed from an alleged incident where our client was accused of secretly observing and recording a woman in a change room in a local clothing shop. The prosecution, represented by the Crown, alleged that our client had surreptitiously filmed or otherwise recorded the individual in an intimate setting. The charges were serious, with potential for significant legal and personal consequences.

Key Facts of the Case:

• The complainant alleged that they were unaware of being observed at the time of the incident.
• The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and statements from the complainant.
• No physical evidence, such as recordings or photographs, was recovered or presented to substantiate the claim of voyeurism.
• There was no direct testimony or any other form of corroborating evidence to suggest that our client had engaged in any voyeuristic activity.

Defence Strategy: We meticulously examined the evidence presented by the Crown and identified several weaknesses that formed the foundation of our case. Key points raised in our defence included:

1. Lack of Evidence:
   • There were no video recordings recovered from our client’s phone that would prove he made the recordings. There was hours of store cctv footage that clearly depicted the fact that our client could not have made a visual observation of the woman in an intimate setting. Therefore, the Crown's case relied heavily on the complainant's unverified testimony.

Court Proceedings and Outcome

As we prepared for trial, I was able to convince the Crown that there was insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The lack of tangible proof, coupled with the inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, undermined the credibility of their claims.

However, after a careful review of the evidence in the Crown’s possession, it was clear that our client could be found guilty of attempted voyeurism. Section 24 of the Criminal Code states:

(1) Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence.

Question of law

(2) The question whether an act or omission by a person who has an intent to commit an offence is or is not mere preparation to commit the offence, and too remote to constitute an attempt to commit the offence, is a question of law.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of a thorough defence in criminal proceedings. Despite the serious nature of the charge, the Crown was unable to establish a clear and convincing case for the offence as charged. However, there was still risk and liability if we pursued trial. Therefore, we were able to negotiate a peace bond which assisted our client with some resources, it ensured he did not receive a criminal record nor did he face any jail time. It is important to critically assess your case and ensure that there are no pitfalls even though the prosecutor cannot prove the offence as charged.

If you have been charged with a serious offence contact us today.