Voyeurism Charges Defence Lawyer in Kingston

We defend voyeurism charges laid by Kingston Police.

Anyone charged with voyeurism under s. 162 (1) of the Criminal Code should hire a criminal defence lawyer immediately for representation. All forms of voyeurism charges carry a maximum possible sentence of 5 years in prison and a criminal record. Non-Canadian citizens will likely be deported by IRCC if sentenced to more than 6 months in jail.

If the alleged acts of voyeurism took place in Kingston, the charges will be laid by Kingston Police. The accused will receive a court date at the courthouse located at 279 Wellington Street, Kingston, ON. Most first appearances are held in courtroom 2. This information will be printed on the Undertaking (Form 10) or Release Order (Form 11) that is provided to the accused.

The accused will also be fingerprinted or receive a future fingerprinting date as part of the arrest process. Those released from the police station on an Undertaking will be given a future date to attend for fingerprints.

The offence of voyeurism is codified in Section 162 (1) of the Criminal Code, which reads:

Voyeurism

162 (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if

(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;

(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or

(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

Voyeurism charges can originate in both public and private settings.

The most obvious cases involve the use of hidden cameras in bathrooms, dressing rooms, bedrooms and other places where privacy is expected. Charges can also result from allegations of taking inappropriate pictures/videos of people in public places. This includes upskirt, downblouse, and other forms of “creep shots”.

Since the legal definition of voyeurism is somewhat open ended, the police may lay charges in circumstances that would not support a conviction at trial. For this reason, it is essential that the accused hire a criminal defence lawyer with experience defending voyeurism charges in court.

Defending voyeurism charges in court by challenging the applicability of the Criminal Code to the alleged acts.

It is a question of law whether what the police allege occurred constitutes criminal voyeurism. It is up to the court to decide whether the accused acted “surreptitiously”, whether the alleged victim was in circumstances that gave rise to a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, and if necessary whether the recording or viewing was done “for a sexual purpose”.

Kingston Police may take the position that all of these are true with very little investigation or consideration of other possible alternative explanations. The accused is often just assumed to be a voyeur because people found him “creepy”.

A judge hearing all of the evidence in court may see things differently and conclude that no crime occurred. For example, someone who is obviously taking pictures with their phone may argue that this is not “surreptitious” at all depending on the context. If the accused remains silent, the police may lack evidence that their actions were “for a sexual purpose”, which is required if prosecuting under s. 162 (1)(c).

The offence of voyeurism does not equate to looking creepy with a phone in your hand.

It is easy to be accused of taking pictures/media in public without permission for a sexual purpose. Often the accused is alone and minding their own business at the time.

Public voyeurism allegations usually occur where people may be dressed in swim or sportswear like at splash pads, the gym, public pools, parks, and beaches. Charges are also laid for people acting “creepy” around mall escalators, stairs, and on public transit. The component of “for a sexual purpose” is often just assumed without any corroborating evidence whatsoever.

The police may even lay charges before conducting a search of the cell phone to determine whether the accused even took photos/videos or not. Upon laying charges, the police will often publicly release the name/picture of the accused to the media. In Ontario, some wrongfully arrested people have sued the police for prematurely charging and publicly naming (shaming) them before even searching their device for hard evidence.

The identity of the real perpetrator may be difficult to determine in hidden camera cases.

If a hidden camera is found in a bathroom, shower, or change room, it may be difficult for the police to prove their suspect actually put it there (absent a confession). Sometimes all of their evidence is circumstantial as to who planted the device (especially if the accused remains silent).

In the Kingston area it is not uncommon for numerous people to share living arrangements, particularly in the immigrant communities (students, work permit, PR holders). Not only are there other people living in the home that could be responsible, any guests that they invite over could also be the real culprit.

If the Crown Attorney has no reasonable prospect of conviction, they may withdraw voyeurism charges to avoid losing at trial.

Don’t assume that you will be found guilty of voyeurism just because the police have charged you with it. The police often lay charges on who they think is a very logical suspect, but without hard proof that would stand up in court at trial. Hiring a criminal defence lawyer to review the disclosure (evidence) in light of the previous case law may uncover that the Crown has no ability to prove you guilty in court.

If the Crown agrees their evidence is weak, they may drop or withdraw the charges because they have no reasonable prospect of conviction. The defence can point out weaknesses and problems with the Crown’s case in front of a judge during the judicial pre-trial (JPT). This can sometimes motivate the Crown to drop the charges, particularly if the judge agrees with the defence.

If the case goes to a trial, the accused will be acquitted unless all elements of the offence have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In voyeurism cases, the burden of proof on the Crown can sometimes be difficult to meet.

If you or someone you are looking to help has been charged with voyeurism, give us a call today at 647-228-5969 for a free case evaluation and quote.

---

You don't have to jeopardize your future or waste thousands of dollars on excessive legal fees. We provide effective and affordable lawyer representation for those charged with voyeurism throughout Ontario, Canada.

Have a skilled criminal lawyer who focuses on voyeurism defence law in Kingston court protect you and your future from the stigma and consequences of a criminal record and conviction.

Are you a lawyer? If you are defending a criminal case and are looking for expert advice regarding possible defences, case strategies, and information release management call us at: 647-228-5969.

Please note: We do not accept legal aid certificate cases. All clients are handled on a private retainer only.

*2024 Results: the percentage of 99% of clients avoiding a criminal record (conviction) stated on this page is based solely on Lawyer Mark Zinck's personal representation of approximately 2000 criminal defence case clients as of the year 2024. Past results are not necessarily an indication of future results.

---