Judge rules it is NOT in the public interest to prosecute child abuse images hoarder for photographing female colleagues’ bottoms at work
A judge has ruled it is not in the public interest to prosecute a child sex abuse images hoarder for taking pictures of his female colleague’s bottoms at work.
Paul David Stuckey, 27, admitted six child porn charges after police officers found 296 indecent images of children on his computer – including six of the most serious nature.
But when he appeared at Chester Crown Court yesterday he denied outraging public decency by ‘taking numerous photographs and videos of females’ bottoms for the purpose of sexual gratification’.
Judge Roger Dutton agreed with prosecutors that it was ‘not in the public interest’ to pursue the ‘bottom pictures’ charge and said it should lie on file.
udge Dutton ruled over Gayle Newland case where she duped a female partner into having sex with her by using a fake penis.
Despite not wishing to prosecute, he did take issue with Stuckey’s claim his motive for taking pictures of his colleagues was not sexual.
He asked his defence solicitor Chris Hunt: ‘You’re saying he had a legitimate anatomical interest in women’s bottoms?’
Mr Hunt argued that taking pictures of people in public who are ‘not engaged in a private act’ is not a criminal offence.
Stuckey, of Ellesmere Port, Cheshire took the photos of the woman’s bottoms between June 2014 and February this year before police got hold of his computer.
But Mr Hunt maintained he was not acting against law, referring to the case of journalist Gina Martin who is campaigning to make taking pictures up women’s skirts a sexual offence – a step beyond his client’s actions at work.
The 25-year-old launched a petition that has gathered nearly 65,000 signatures in her bid to get ‘upskirting’ covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
She launched her social media fight after she was ‘upskirted’ by two men at British Summer Time Festival in London’s Hyde Park.
Currently such offences are only classified as outraging public decency and do not carry the same hefty sentences as sexual crimes.
The petition site reads: ‘The existing offence is Outraging Public Decency – to commit an act of a lewd, obscene and disgusting nature, which is capable of outraging public decency, in a public place where at least two members of the public who were actually present at the time could have witnessed it.
‘But we want the law to specify clearly that this is a sexual offence with a victim, by adding this offence to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.’
The law could be set to change after Secretary of State for Justice David Lidington noted the petition.
He told the Commons: ‘I have taken very seriously the representations made by Gina Martin and from some of the police and crime commissioners.
‘I have asked for detailed advice on this. Before proceeding to a commitment to new legislation, I want to be absolutely certain that this would be the right course to take.’
Ms Martin also recently revealed the Metropolitan Police have reopened her case, after dismissing it and saying there was ‘not much we can could do’.
Stuckey was due to appear in court with his brother Steven, who was found with 453 child sex images, including 12 of the most serious category A nature, but he failed to show.
The court how they brothers downloaded the images when they shared a ‘small room’ in their house.
Paul Stuckey will be sentenced on September 29 after a pre-sentence report is prepared.