privacy in shop fitting rooms

just a little question maybe someone would have an answer to,

if a lady is in a fitting room of a clothes store trying on clothes and a male employee looks over the door, to ascertain if it is occupied or not,
what if any law is broken here?
could the employee just claim it was a mistake?
is the shop responsible for not having a sysytem in place to make sure that this does not happen?
surely the customer has some right to privacy in a locked fitting room?

Rightwing

bubblypop wrote: »

just a little question maybe someone would have an answer to,

if a lady is in a fitting room of a clothes store trying on clothes and a male employee looks over the door, to ascertain if it is occupied or not,
what if any law is broken here?
could the employee just claim it was a mistake?
is the shop responsible for not having a sysytem in place to make sure that this does not happen?
surely the customer has some right to privacy in a locked fitting room?

I know what you are saying. Employee probably get a reprimand.

If a man was changing and a woman looked in no one would care.

Funny world we live in.

Pat Mustard

People who gawk in over the door of changing rooms tend to get fired.

Sulla Felix

I don't think any law is being broken.

Also, not sure what the gender has to do with anything. If we're going with the case of a woman in the changing room, presumably you've used a man in the example to highlight the fear that the employee is getting some kind of gratification or thrill out of the act? Why not a lesbian?

Motive would be key, and a quick look followed by a probably hurried apology would suggest an accident. The company might act but that's another issue.

hullaballoo

I reckon this is essentially voyeurism and I don't think that's illegal here. I also don't think that it would be possible to enforce a law against voyeurism. It seems to me that it's too similar to thought crime.

It would certainly be difficult to show that the voyeur had sexual motivations: sexual motivations would obviously have to be a proof if there was ever to be a law against voyeurism.

LowKeyReturn

hullaballoo wrote: »

I reckon this is essentially voyeurism and I don't think that's illegal here. I also don't think that it would be possible to enforce a law against voyeurism. It seems to me that it's too similar to thought crime.

It would certainly be difficult to show that the voyeur had sexual motivations: sexual motivations would obviously have to be a proof if there was ever to be a law against voyeurism.

Perfect example of why legal advice should not be given here. Binoculars have been purchased. :pac:

Cody Pomeray

Most voyeurism cases in the UK (where this is codified) appear to involve the use of a video camera or some other recording device, but it could indeed be difficult to overcome the sexual gratification evidence in the absence of any such device.

But it has been done. It would be possible to take a successful action here if we implemented a similar law to the U.K.

Of course, there always remains the possibility of a breach of privacy action, as referenced earlier, but that is quite different to this more benign case, and I wouldn't be suggesting it applies to the OP.

Pat Mustard

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Most voyeurism cases in the UK (where this is codified) appear to involve the use of a video camera or some other recording device, but it could indeed be difficult to overcome the sexual gratification evidence in the absence of any such device.

I assume that you are talking about the possibility of a civil action.

As regards a criminal prosecution of one of these video camera voyeur cases, see this article in relation to the same case quoted earlier.

He was convicted of harassment under s.10 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 and got a four-year suspended sentence.

Whelan admitted using the camera installed in the first location over the previous six months to record the 885 images and 30 videos of the women undressing and in their underwear.


Whelan (42), Farrenboley Park, Windy Arbour, pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to harassment of eight women at the National Rehabilitation Hospital in 2011/12.


Judge Martin Nolan suspended a jail term of four years after noting that Whelan was the significant carer for his elderly and sick parents. “If it had gone on much longer and the photographs had been more explicit my hand may have been forced so Mr Whelan is very lucky”, the judge said.

Obviously, the persistent nature of the harassment described in the newspaper article should be contrasted with the single incident described in the OP.

Cody Pomeray

Oh yes, I wasn't trying to say that a charge cannot be made. It's slightly more cumbersome, but of course you can have an outcome which is broadly equivalent, in effect, to a voyeurism offence as can be found in the United Kingdom.

I only bring up the issue of voyeurism case law in the UK to suggest that the sexual gratification test is not one that is necessarily perceived as difficult to overcome.