Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Alex Chalk and Stella Creasy

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

As ever, I agree with much of what the right hon. Lady says. I think we need to say that the bigger thing she is talking about is misogyny. There are men out there who are hostile towards women and act accordingly. As a result, 51% of our population experiences harassment and a particular type of crime. At the moment, we cannot name, recognise and differentiate it, and therefore say, as we do with racially or religiously targeted hatred, that there is a premium on it. That is what the amendments would achieve.

This is also about what drives police behaviour, because if something is a crime, the evidence about it of course needs to be gathered. I have to admit to my honest frustration, as the first female MP for Walthamstow, where a number of people have tried to report their experience. Let me give the Minister some examples of the things we are talking about—the responses the women I have mentioned got back when they reported these crimes. In particular, in response to the woman followed down the street by a man demanding that she get into his car and threatening her with his behaviour when she tried to say no, the police said that the

“behaviour is only threatening, abusive, or insulting if the person…intended it to be so, or if he was aware…that it was so. The comments about his believing it to be a prank and being blown out of proportion would make that difficult to achieve.”

Let us think about that for a moment: the experience of the victim of this behaviour—their fear, their terror—means nothing because the man just said, “I was kidding”. We would not allow that for any other form of crime, so why do we allow it when it comes to men who harass women?

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

rose—

[Stella Creasy]

I will happily give way to my colleague from the Bill Committee.

[Alex Chalk]

As always, the hon. Lady makes a powerful point, but just because a defendant or suspect alleges that that was in their mind and therefore has a defence, it does not mean a tribunal of fact—magistrates or a jury—will believe it. Very often they say, “What a load of old nonsense. We’re going to convict you.” Does she agree?

[Stella Creasy]

I hesitate to say that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said, but this was what the police said. Such a case will never get to a point at which a jury or somebody looks at the evidence base because we do not have a commitment to recording and recognising misogyny. Such a commitment would mean that the police would record and recognise it in the same way as racial or religious hatred. Before this case got to the test that the hon. Gentleman is setting, the police said that they would not investigate it further. The challenge facing women across this country is that we do not take this seriously: 66% of women have changed their behaviour to try to avoid street harassment as the police are not taking it seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

As ever, my hon. Friend is on the money about the importance of a victim-centred approach. We know from Nottingham—[Interruption.] I do apologise; I meant Nottinghamshire—sorry, Frodo. We know from those examples that recognition of the multiple kinds of intersectional hostility that women may face has been a powerfully positive experience, particularly for women from black and ethnic minority backgrounds.

Internationally, this is not a new idea. Spain, Croatia, Sweden, Estonia, Italy, Belgium and France all recognise gender and misogyny as a basis for hate crime. We are talking about replicating our current model for racial and religious hatred, and saying that we should be able to recognise similar hostility in the sentencing of particular crimes. We should be able to recognise the hate as it is.

There is already a framework that Ministers can use. The Crown Prosecution Service and the police already define cases involving hostility as

“any…offence that is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice.”

The CPS does not have a legal definition of hostility; it uses the everyday understanding of the word. We all understand and recognise misogyny when we talk about ill will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike. We seek to echo existing protections and to put the protections that we offer someone for their religious or ethnic background in a position of parity with those that we offer them for their sex background.

I accept that amendment 7 is not a perfect amendment because it covers only upskirting, but upskirting is a classic example of an offence that happens within the context of misogyny. It is motivated by misogyny.

[Alex Chalk]

rose—

[Stella Creasy]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman because I know he feels very strongly about this.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful point, but she has identified something that she is right to concede is a weakness. It would be very odd, would it not, if misogyny could be applied to the offence of upskirting but not to rape, sexual assault or revenge porn. Does she therefore agree that a solution might be to get the Law Commission to look at the matter in a more holistic way?

[Stella Creasy]

It is almost as though the hon. Gentleman read my mind—he is right. The data shows us that 15% of young girls say that they are being groped, and there might be somebody behind that and we want to record where it is happening. Clearly, this is not just about how people use mobile phones in the modern world. It is about the hatred towards women that exists among a small group of men in our society, and the damage that that is doing to our society as a whole.

I have said clearly that we would not press the amendments if we could have a meaningful and properly funded Law Commission review into all hate crime, including misogyny, looking at both existing and new legislation. I do not think that that is a lot to ask. I know that the Law Commission is open to looking at the matter and that it recognises the importance of new legislation. We required new legislation to extend such protections to disability and transgender identity.

Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Alex Chalk and Stella Creasy

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 12th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Chalk]

I rise briefly to oppose the amendments, although I recognise that they have validity and force. I am not suggesting that they are misconceived, but, on balance, the Committee should vote against if necessary, and I will explain why.

The first point is one that has already been made. We should not lose sight of the fact that almost everyone who has spoken about these matters recognises that the overwhelming majority of offending would comfortably have been caught. Although a point has been made about the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is worth considering precisely what she said in paragraph 2.6 of her written evidence:

“The Bill introduces purposes for which such activities are committed. We anticipate that most offending will fall comfortably within these categories.”

That is important—it is worth underscoring the point—because while one can imagine some individuals in court saying, “This was just for fun, wasn’t it? We were having a good time and it was just larks,” or equally a journalist saying, “My motivation was to get money,” it is always open to the Crown to say that that was a subordinate motivation that comes within the scope of the Bill. Therefore, it will be vanishingly rare, I suggest, for any defendant credibly to argue—with emphasis on the word “credibly”—that no part of his or her motivation fell within the scope of the Bill.

It is also worth considering the representations that were made in a wider context. Ryan Whelan, the lawyer representing Gina Martin, said in written evidence:

“However, most if not all of these cases”—

referring to other suggested motives—

“can be caught by the Bill as it stands. There is no requirement that the prohibited motive be the only motive and the offender who acts to humiliate, distress or alarm the victim is not somehow given a defence because he does those things for financial gain, a laugh or to exert power.”

The point I want to make is that, often, in life and with respect to the Bill, people do stupid and illegal things for a blend of motives. It is no good them standing in court and saying, “My primary motive is not within the Act. Therefore, I should walk out of this court scot free,” because most juries would give that short shrift.

[Stella Creasy]

This is a very interesting conversation. The only person who has mentioned how consent might influence such a decision was the Minister, in a very narrow context. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are all about the offender. If this is a victim-centred Bill, it does not matter whether somebody was having a laugh or was sexually gratified. It matters whether the person whose photo was taken said, “Yes.” Where does that come in his hierarchy?

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Ultimately, we are trying to prevent offending so that victims can get justice. One aspect of victims getting justice is ensuring that something is put on the statute book as quickly and efficiently as possible. The key evidence, if I may say so—the centre of effort that came from Gina Martin’s evidence—is that she wants to see this on the statute book. For it to mirror the situation in Scotland has an added advantage.

The second point, over and above the inconsistency, is about the sexual offenders register, which is critically important for this reason. If someone is put on the sexual offenders register, that is major deal, because if they act in breach of that they will go inside. It is absolutely right, by the way, that that happens. If somebody commits an offence such as this for a sexual motive, it is quite correct that they should go on the sexual offenders register. Indeed, the overall tenor of the evidence is that the Bill is right to draw a distinction between those who commit the offence to humiliate or degrade and those who commit it to achieve sexual gratification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Buck, this fine Thursday morning. I rise partly in response to the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I apologise for being unable to listen to the second set of evidence. The Committee will have to forgive me; I am afraid I had a rather unpleasant medical emergency. Members will be pleased to see that I am back on my feet and trying to respond.

The amendments matter because of a couple of concerns that I want to put on the record. I understand the case set out by the hon. Member for Cheltenham from his experience. Let us take it as a given that everybody on the Committee wants the legislation to pass and be as good as it can be. The challenge and the difference is about whether it will meet that second test. The amendments address a concern that many of us have and that, if I am honest, the hon. Gentleman set out very well in how he talked about the crime and how he believes, given his experience as a criminal barrister, the legislation would be enacted. He did not at any point, even when I prompted him, say that the courts would consider the fact that the victim said, “No, I didn’t consent to this.”

The concern about setting out specific motivations is that it takes the power away from the victim to be the one who defines what happened, and that it is wrong. When we start to include particular categories, we take the conversation away from whether a woman such as Gina Martin, or a man who had a camera put up his kilt, said, “No,” or, when they found out what had happened, said, “That was not something I consented to.” Instead, we start quibbling about the motivations of the perpetrator. We all want to ensure that victims come first in the law.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that victims should be in charge of their own bodily integrity, and that includes whether they are upskirted or touched intimately. However, on either formulation—the Government’s or that in the amendment—that is taken as read. In other words, it is a key part of the offence that it has to be shown that the victim did not consent. Of course, if the victim says, “Oh yeah, absolutely—I’m perfectly happy,” that is taken as read. It is the same in the Government’s formulation and in the amendment.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he and I disagree on that. By putting in notions about the motivation of the offence, we automatically start queering the conversation away from that very simple point—whether we can prove that the person consented—and we start saying, “Hang on a minute; was it about sexual gratification?” or, “Hang on a minute; can we prove it’s a third, or indeed a fourth, party?”

If only this was about pornographic websites. We live in a culture in which people will take such pictures and engage in that behaviour not just to humiliate, but to entertain. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a regular reader of Heat magazine, and magazines such as Closer. He will have seen such pictures being used to entertain. The risk of setting out the motivations is that we create loopholes and take the focus away from consent. He and I agree that consent should be the primary focus. Saying it is taken as read is not the same as making it the primary, defining factor.

The right hon. Member for Basingstoke has been brilliant about identifying some of the challenges. By removing these requirements, we take the focus back to the victim. I worry, and I suspect that other Committee members worry too, that there will be a case in which somebody says, “It wasn’t for sexual gratification; I was making money, but doing so to entertain.” That is the world we live in now. We have voyeurism for the sake of voyeurism. There is no sexual element to it; there is simply the pleasure of seeing somebody else in an awkward position. It is not necessarily about humiliation or distress. Again, setting bars for what has to be proved would create an environment that none of us want.

[Alex Chalk]

If an individual who said, “I’m selling it to Closer magazine,” turned up in court and said, “Do you know what? I had no idea that it might humiliate, alarm or distress the victim”, does the hon. Lady really think that he is likely to be believed by a jury?

[Stella Creasy]

We are going to come on to some of the broader questions underpinning the offence. The sad truth is that this is not the first time that people have tried to humiliate, and to humiliate mainly women. This is not the first time that there has been a sense of entitlement to see, to judge and to talk about the privacy of a woman’s body. Do I have confidence that there would be people on the jury who would think, “Well, fair play”? Sadly, that is the society that we live in and we are making legislation in that society. I wish I could be with the hon. Gentleman in having confidence that in the 21st century people would recognise that treating women as pieces of meat for their entertainment is no longer acceptable, but, sadly, both case law and modern society tell us that we still have a long way to go.

The risk for all of us is that we create a loophole in the legislation, where people quibble about whether it was entertaining or not, rather than ask the simple question: did she say yes? Did she say she was happy for it to happen, because it was something she was doing for her career, or whatever? I wager him that we would have a case where we would have that kind of discussion, and ask him to think what it would be like for the victim in that circumstance to have motivation pored over in court, rather than the simple question of whether she said yes or no.

We are not pushing these amendments to a vote today, but we have to recognise that there is a risk that there could be a loophole. There is a risk that we are sending a message from this place that our focus is going to be all about the ins and outs of motivation, rather than on saying that, in 2018, consent and equality are what matters in our legislation and we will introduce legislation accordingly.