The Centre for Women’s Justice launched a second judicial review this week against the DPP, this time on behalf of Emily Hunt (who has waived her anonymity) to challenge the bizarre refusal to prosecute a man who admitted filming Emily naked without her consent for the purpose of his own sexual gratification. Despite cross party political support and the government confirming that what happened to Ms Hunt is a criminal offence, the CPS, already under scrutiny for the alarming drop in prosecutions for rape, have maintained their decision not to prosecute.
Background
Emily Hunt alleges that she was raped in May 2015. She woke up cold and naked on a hotel bed in London, next to a man she’d never seen before. Her last memory was of having lunch with a family member in a local restaurant five hours earlier. Emily felt as though she had been drugged, and also suspected she’d been raped. The Metropolitan Police were called immediately and the suspect interviewed under caution. He admitted sex had taken place but claimed it had been with her consent. Following a flawed investigation by the police, a decision was made by the CPS not to prosecute the suspect for rape.
A year after the ordeal, Hunt discovered, during a meeting with the police, that her attacker had taken a video lasting over one minute of her naked and unconscious on the hotel bed for the purpose of “masturbating to it later.” Hunt’s attacker told the police in his statement that he knew that he did not have her permission to take the video, and, further, that he knew that Hunt would be upset if she had woken up while he was taking the video.
Ms Hunt asked the CPS to charge the alleged perpetrator with an offence relating to the non-consensual video recording of her. However, she was informed that this did not amount to a criminal offence because the act had taken place in private. Ms Hunt contacted members of parliament, receiving cross party support, including from both feminist MP Jess Philips and anti-feminist campaigning MP, Philip Davies. The latter wrote to Alison Saunders, then DPP, who confirmed the decision not to prosecute was justified whilst accepting “the law is far from settled but this is certainly an argument which could reasonably be advanced."
In consequence, Ms Hunt, wrote to the relevant Government minister, Margot James MP, asking her to consider steps to reform the law to clarify this area. Ms James responded, stating that the issue she complained of was already governed by the offence of voyeurism”.
Armed with this information, Ms Hunt returned to the CPS and asked them to prosecute for voyeurism, however they maintain the offence does not amount to a criminal offence. Whilst accepting that there is no dispute the video recording for the purpose of future sexual gratification was non consensual, but because there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the preceding sex was non consensual, there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy for the act of filming naked whilst asleep.
Legal proceedings
In their second letter before action in one week to the DPP in relation to failure to prosecute sexual offences, the Centre for Women’s Justice have threatened legal action against the DPP if they do not reconsider the decision to charge, arguing that the CPS erred in concluding that the Claimant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, in law, in respect of being filmed, naked, while she was asleep.
Emily Hunt who has launched a crowd justice campaign to raise sufficient funds to enable her to pursue these legal proceedings, stated:
“The only way to keep this from happening to anyone else in the UK, is to make sure that CPS prosecutes these cases. They can’t just decide to not read the law as written and ignore the government’s advice on what the law intended when it was passed. That’s why I’m taking them to court to force the issue.”
Harriet Wistrich, Director of the Centre for Women’s Justice, stated, “It is hard to fathom why the CPS has taken such a cowardly approach to prosecuting sexual offences of late, in what is looking like systemic discrimination against women. The consequence is men are emboldened to continue to abuse women because they know there is little chance they will be held to account.”
CWJ and Hunt need to raise £5,000 in order to kick start the Judicial Review and more to ensure that Hunt is not at risk of paying the CPS’s costs should she lose her case.
For more information go to: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/emilyhunt/