CHRIS JAMES FROM SUTTON-ON-TRENT SENTENCED TO JAIL FOR FILMING YOUNG GIRLS IN DISTURBING VOYEURISM CASE
| Red Rose Database
Sutton-on-Trent Child Sexual Abuser
In August 2015, a disturbing case of voyeurism culminated in the imprisonment of Chris James, a 50-year-old man from Sutton-on-Trent, who was found guilty of secretly filming young girls in private moments. The incident drew significant attention from Nottingham Crown Court, where the severity of his actions was thoroughly examined and met with a firm judicial response.
According to court reports, James had taken covert measures to avoid detection while capturing footage of girls undressing. He used a small, pen-sized camera, which was cleverly concealed and equipped with a tape over a blue light that would normally illuminate when the device was active. This was done intentionally to prevent his victims from realizing they were being recorded, thereby increasing the breach of their privacy and trust.
The court heard that James resided on High Street in Sutton-on-Trent, and despite pleas for a suspended sentence, the presiding judge, Judge Michael Stokes QC, decided that immediate incarceration was necessary. The judge emphasized the gravity of the offense, stating, "Men who engage in this activity have got to know that custody will follow. The damage this sort of behaviour does to young adolescent girls must be considerable. There has to be an immediate custodial sentence."
As part of the sentencing, the court ordered the destruction of all equipment used by James in the commission of his crimes. James admitted to charges of voyeurism, recording a person in a private act, and possessing indecent images of children. Prosecutor James Thomas revealed that the hidden camera was used to capture intimate images of girls under the age of 16. When authorities searched James’s home following the discovery of the camera, they also found indecent images of girls on his laptop, which had been sourced from the internet.
James had no prior criminal record, and during police interviews, he fully admitted his guilt. The case was particularly distressing for one of his victims, who later expressed feelings of paranoia and a sense of constant surveillance, which had severely impacted her confidence. Her statement indicated that she believed the emotional scars from this incident would persist for a long time.
In mitigation, Lisa Hardy, representing James, explained that he did not download or share the indecent images, and emphasized his personal struggles. Hardy noted that James was deeply affected by the recent death of his long-standing partner and wife, which had led him into a period of emotional turmoil. She described his remorse and honesty, stating, “He was very frank when he said he got gratification from it. The admissions to police were immediate,” and added that James “has a horror of what he had done.”
Ultimately, the court’s decision underscored the seriousness of the offense and the need to send a clear message that such behaviour would be met with swift and firm punishment, especially given the vulnerable nature of the victims involved in this disturbing case from Sutton-on-Trent.
According to court reports, James had taken covert measures to avoid detection while capturing footage of girls undressing. He used a small, pen-sized camera, which was cleverly concealed and equipped with a tape over a blue light that would normally illuminate when the device was active. This was done intentionally to prevent his victims from realizing they were being recorded, thereby increasing the breach of their privacy and trust.
The court heard that James resided on High Street in Sutton-on-Trent, and despite pleas for a suspended sentence, the presiding judge, Judge Michael Stokes QC, decided that immediate incarceration was necessary. The judge emphasized the gravity of the offense, stating, "Men who engage in this activity have got to know that custody will follow. The damage this sort of behaviour does to young adolescent girls must be considerable. There has to be an immediate custodial sentence."
As part of the sentencing, the court ordered the destruction of all equipment used by James in the commission of his crimes. James admitted to charges of voyeurism, recording a person in a private act, and possessing indecent images of children. Prosecutor James Thomas revealed that the hidden camera was used to capture intimate images of girls under the age of 16. When authorities searched James’s home following the discovery of the camera, they also found indecent images of girls on his laptop, which had been sourced from the internet.
James had no prior criminal record, and during police interviews, he fully admitted his guilt. The case was particularly distressing for one of his victims, who later expressed feelings of paranoia and a sense of constant surveillance, which had severely impacted her confidence. Her statement indicated that she believed the emotional scars from this incident would persist for a long time.
In mitigation, Lisa Hardy, representing James, explained that he did not download or share the indecent images, and emphasized his personal struggles. Hardy noted that James was deeply affected by the recent death of his long-standing partner and wife, which had led him into a period of emotional turmoil. She described his remorse and honesty, stating, “He was very frank when he said he got gratification from it. The admissions to police were immediate,” and added that James “has a horror of what he had done.”
Ultimately, the court’s decision underscored the seriousness of the offense and the need to send a clear message that such behaviour would be met with swift and firm punishment, especially given the vulnerable nature of the victims involved in this disturbing case from Sutton-on-Trent.