Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Derek Woodman BMW
Sponsored by
A New BMW 318d SE from £299.00 per month. T&C apply
 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Toilet peeping tom has jail sentence cut



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

A PEEPING tom who used a camera to spy on women using a Fleetwood public toilet has had his sentence reduced.
William John Hodgson, 44, positioned a remote control camera and monitor so he could peep on ladies in the WC in Fleetwood.

The married father-of-two, of Ingleway Avenue, Blackpool, was caught after a black box containing a monitor was spotted on
a cistern in the adjoining gents' toilet, along with grey piping linked to a pinhole camera on the floor of the ladies' toilet.

Hodgson was jailed for 20 weeks at Preston Crown Court last month after pleading guilty to voyeurism. He was also banned from entering all ladies' public toilets or baby changing areas.

On Friday, however, he was freed on appeal at London's Criminal Appeal Court, after judges, Mr Justice Aikens and Mrs Justice Swift, quashed his sentence and imposed a three-year community rehabilitation order instead.

Giving the judgment of the court, Mrs Justice Swift said the offence was not serious enough for the jail sentence imposed because he did not record the women using the toilet, or share footage with anyone else.

The judge said: "It is submitted that Hodgson committed a basic offence, similar to spying through a hole in a changing room wall, for his own gratification.

"It was a continuing offence with a high degree of technical sophistication.

"But we don't consider, having regard to his previous good character and guilty plea, that the sentence of 20 months was necessary.

"He has now served the equivalent of six weeks in custody.

"No doubt that has brought home to him the serious consequences of what he did and will prevent any repetition," the judge concluded.

Hodgson said the camera and monitor were originally bought as part of his hobby as model boat enthusiast.

The public conveniences involved have not been named.

The judge ordered that, as a condition of his community rehabilitation, Hodgson must attend a community sex offenders' programme.



The full article contains 336 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 May 2008 9:36 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Fleetwood
 
Prev
1
Next
1

Psycho2,

04/05/2008 10:01:11
Another case of idiot judges completely getting it wrong. So it is perfectly ok for some nutter to put a camera in ladies' public toilets and spy on them? He doesn't deserve to go to jail? What a load of rubbish. This is what's wrong with the justice system. Judges have absolutely no idea of what an adequate punishment is. Wonder how they'd feel if they found out someone had stuck a camera in their toilets and had been filming them on the loo? Not too pleased, I wouldn't think. Sack the judges, they are out of touch.
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Do you think judges were wrong to reduce the sentence of a man who had spied, using a camera, on women in a Fleetwood public toilet?
The judges were wrong, as the original sentence was correct
The judges were right, as it wasn't that serious an offence
The judges should have INCREASED the sentence

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.