ADRIAN DRABBLE FROM ROSS-ON-WYE CAUGHT IN SHOCKING VOYEURISM CASE AT LEDBURY SHOP

In a disturbing case that has shocked the local community, Adrian Drabble, a shop director from Ross-on-Wye, was found guilty of voyeurism after secretly filming an underage girl during a photo shoot at his business premises in Ledbury. The incident, which took place in December 2017, involved the covert recording of a 15-year-old model, raising serious concerns about privacy and exploitation.

Drabble, aged 62, who is also known for running a small modelling agency alongside his role as a director at Crystal Carpets, was convicted at Hereford Magistrates Court. The court heard that the young girl was taken from her home by Drabble for a shopping trip, during which she was instructed to bring specific undergarments, including a black bra and a white bra, to coordinate with her clothing for a planned photo shoot. The girl was told she would need to change her underwear to match her outfit, a routine part of the shoot.

However, suspicions arose when the girl noticed a photograph of the interior of the changing room on Drabble’s computer. This prompted her to become wary of the situation. Upon entering the upstairs office, which served as a changing room, she discovered a mobile phone hidden inside a box with its camera activated. Recognizing the potential danger, she promptly left the room and contacted her mother, who advised her to leave the premises immediately.

Subsequent police investigations uncovered footage stored on Drabble’s computer from a previous shoot, which showed the girl removing her bra inside the changing room. The evidence revealed that Drabble had been recording the girl without her knowledge, ostensibly for his own sexual gratification. The police also found the mobile phone used for filming, which was hidden in the room during the incident.

During the court proceedings, Drabble attempted to justify his actions by claiming that security cameras had been installed in the building following a break-in a few years earlier. He stated that no permanent cameras had been placed inside the changing area and that any cameras present were for security purposes only. He admitted that the models were not informed about the camera in the room but argued that signs elsewhere in the building warned visitors of CCTV surveillance. Drabble claimed that the camera was installed to protect himself from false allegations, asserting that he had not watched the footage and that it was intended solely for self-protection.

However, the court was unconvinced by his explanations. The chairman, Jane Hinton, emphasized that the primary motive appeared to be sexual gratification, stating, “Any sensible person would realize it was not a good idea to film a young woman changing. To suggest it was for protection is not credible. The only possible reason for him to have done this was for his own sexual gratification, otherwise he would have asked for a chaperone to accompany the girl.”

Sentencing details revealed that Drabble would be placed on the sex offenders register for five years, fined hundreds of pounds, and ordered to pay £250 in compensation to the victim. Additionally, he was required to cover £700 in Crown Prosecution Service costs and an £85 victim surcharge. The court also mandated the destruction of his computer tower and mobile phone, and imposed strict conditions on his possession of digital devices, including a prohibition on possessing any device capable of storing digital data unless it is available for police inspection and he is not allowed to delete browsing history.

Furthermore, Drabble was subjected to a rehabilitation order lasting up to 40 days, to be completed by 2022, and was ordered to undertake 150 hours of unpaid community service over the next year. An indefinite restraining order was also issued, preventing him from contacting any female under the age of 16 unless unavoidable. These measures aim to prevent any further contact or misconduct involving minors.

Adrian Drabble’s sentencing followed his conviction at the same court in June, with the verdict delivered on July 3. The case has left many in the community deeply concerned about the safety and privacy of young individuals, highlighting the importance of vigilance and strict enforcement of laws protecting minors from exploitation and voyeurism.