Member

I turn now Amendment 277, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. Recently, there have been truly disturbing accounts of men filming women on a night out and sharing these images and videos online without their consent, so I completely sympathise with the harm that she seeks to address by criminalising taking photos in public without consent but with intent to cause alarm, humiliation or distress. The difficulty is that, as drafted, this amendment is too wide. Although it is plainly not her intention, such an offence could, for example, have a profound effect on journalists. As it would not restrict the offence to taking a photograph or a film of a person in an intimate state, such an offence could criminalise a press photographer taking an embarrassing photo of a public figure that is not intimate but would otherwise cause them humiliation or distress. In fact, in many cases, the content the noble Baroness is concerned about is already criminal—certainly through the upskirting provisions and, if repeated, the stalking and harassment provisions—and, if it is done for financial gain, this can already be considered at sentencing as an aggravating factor.