Mervyn Storey
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. It will be noted that there are those who cry much about the environment and purport to be the champions of the environment who did not have the courtesy to come to the House and be present when the statement was being made.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Clearly, there are some in the House who want to continue with the same old, same old and get the same outcomes at a huge cost to the public purse and to farms in Northern Ireland. The Minister is absolutely right: it is a scourge.”
“I am sure that the Minister will be aware, having listened to the Member who spoke before me, that the farmers of North Antrim will make an informed choice about who best supported farmers during this mandate of the Assembly.”
“A pilot scheme has been operating with the Education Authority, the PSNI and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust across 60 schools in the south Down area since September 2021 and was extended to a further 77 schools in the Newry and south Armagh areas at the start of February 2022.”
“As Chair of the Justice Committee, I am pleased to welcome the motion. It implements the provisions taken forward by the Committee in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to establish an Operation Encompass model in Northern Ireland, which is, as the Minister has outlined, a police and early intervention pa…”
“We had our final meeting of that Committee this morning, and I want to place on the public record our appreciation and thanks to our Committee staff of for all the work that they have done.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,983 lines we hold for Mervyn Storey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 60.
“I thank the Minister for giving way. She talks about engaging with the sector. We heard from the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, the NSPCC and Barnardo's, all of which have a considerable degree of expertise — probably more than we have — in the field. They said that there are gaps, and it is fair to say that they remain to be convinced that the abuse of trust provisions, as currently drafted, are expansive enough to provide for the protection of all children and young people. Given that level of concern, should the Minister not be equally concerned about the issue?”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, I apologise for taking up so much time at the Bill's Further Consideration Stage, but I believe that it was appropriate and necessary to fully set out how the Committee reached its position on the amendments that it has tabled to clauses 1 and 3, and on providing for a new offence of cyber-flashing, to assist the House in understanding what has been a complex, and sometimes challenging, journey through the Bill's stages to date. The Committee welcomes the Minister's support for the amendments to clause 1, and for the inclusion of the offence of cyber-flashing, and looks forward to the debate on the amendments to clause 3.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 23 to 30 make minor changes to clause 18, which requires the Department to issue guidance on Part 1 of the legislation. When the Minister attended the Committee meeting on 10 February, she advised the Committee that there were technical and minor drafting issues with some of the amendments that the Committee was tabling at Consideration Stage and that, assuming that the amendments were agreed by the Assembly, those issues would need to be addressed at Further Consideration Stage. She confirmed that the amendments would not change the intention or effect of the clauses, but are aimed at ensuring consistency with the rest of the legislation and addressing any anomalies. The Department subsequently provided the text of the amendments, which the Committee noted at its meeting on 24 February.”
“It would have been helpful if the issues with amendment Nos 14 to 18 had been brought to the Committee's attention earlier, as they may have been able to have been addressed if we had had more time. <BR /> <BR />I turn, briefly, to amendment Nos 21 to 30. On 2 March, the Department advised the Committee of the Minister's intention to table amendment Nos 21 and 22 and stated that it would address points raised by the Public Prosecution Service in its evidence to the Committee about the operation of the Bill's provisions relating to the anonymity of suspects. The PPS identified the possibility that some repealed offences could still be prosecuted for offending before the date of repeal and would be captured by the Bill's provisions. The Committee noted the position at its meeting on Thursday.”
“I ask the Minister to do so, and to confirm that that work will commence before the end of the mandate to enable it to continue during dissolution, and in the event that the Executive and Assembly are not in place. <BR /> <BR />The aim of the Committee throughout this process has been to ensure that, through the legislation, the best protection possible is provided for children and young people. In doing so, we do not wish to pose any risk to the Bill, given the other crucial elements contained in it that will provide essential protections for some of the most vulnerable in society. Given the limited time available, the best course of action is the one that is being taken by the Committee.”
“The Minister advised the Committee in writing, on 4 March, that she would have been content to support amendment No 20 and not move her amendment No 19 if amendment Nos 14 to 18 were not moved, however she expressed the view that that would not be possible as the amendment was not a stand-alone provision. That has now been clarified. I hope that the Minister will support amendment No 20 and not move amendment No 19. <BR /> <BR />The Minister also advised the Committee that she is willing to commit to officials engaging with the sectors identified in the Committee's amendment Nos 14 to 18 and the wider children’s sector to explore the need for the extension of the abuse of trust provisions as a matter of urgency and would give that firm commitment today on the Floor.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is clear, therefore, that there are genuine concerns in the children’s sector that the abuse of trust provisions will not provide the necessary protection for children. Therefore, the need for a robust, regular and ongoing review mechanism is of even greater importance. We believe that the review mechanisms that are provided by amendment No 20 will provide that. <BR /> <BR />The Minister’s amendment No 19 provides for the Department to complete a review within two years of the abuse of trust provisions of the Bill coming into operation. In the view of the Committee, that is not sufficient as it does not contain an ongoing requirement.”
“Barnardo's advised the Committee that it knows that perpetrators of child abuse and sexual exploitation deliberately seek out loopholes in the law and settings where they will go undetected. <BR /> <BR />The NSPCC reiterated its view that the provisions do not go far enough and are not expansive enough to protect children from adults who are in a position of trust to them. The NSPCC stated that adults who are working in non-statutory settings and are in positions of trust to 16- and 17-year-olds in areas other than religion and sport will remain outside the law. It wanted to see the provisions widened to give 16- and 17-year-olds protection from all adults who are working in a position of trust to them, regardless of the setting.”
“The Children’s Commissioner also had significant concerns about the position of the Department that further evidence must be provided that children have been sexually abused by adults in positions of trust outside of sporting and religious settings before further amendments to widen the scope can be considered. <BR /> <BR />Barnardo’s also stated that the abuse of trust provisions were too narrow in scope. In its view, the legislation should be as strong as possible from the outset, stating that children deserve protection in the law now, no matter the setting, and should not have to wait until an incident of abuse in an additional setting is exposed in order to receive that protection.”
“We cannot say that loudly enough and want to clearly put it on the record that we are particularly exercised by that concern. <BR /> <BR />The Children’s Commissioner advised that she was deeply concerned that provisions to address current legislative gaps in the safeguarding of children and young people from abuse and exploitation by those in positions of trust should not be limited to certain settings. She noted that abuse of trust protections in law should take account of the power dynamics of sexual abuse and exploitation and reflect that children and young people can be subject to abuse by those in positions of trust across a wide range of relationships and activities rather than focus on a limited number of settings.”
“However, after taking that decision, the Committee's amendment No 20, which provides for the Department to annually review the position and assess the risk of harm on an ongoing basis, becomes particularly crucial. <BR /> <BR />The Committee tabled the amendments to widen the scope of the abuse of trust provisions in good faith to address the concern of Members that there are gaps. Those concerns were based on the views of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and Barnardo’s, and it is fair to say that we remain to be convinced that the abuse of trust provisions, as drafted, are expansive enough to provide the protection that all children and young people are entitled to from adults in a position of trust.”
“The Committee considered the Minister's correspondence at its meeting last Thursday and agreed to seek clarification on her position before holding an additional meeting, which took place earlier today, to consider the issues and concerns that were raised. The meeting also provided an opportunity to informally discuss amendment Nos 14 to 18 with the Attorney General, who raised some scope and drafting issues and outlined the process if, in her view, the Bill strayed outside the competence of the Assembly. In light of that additional information and the potential risks involved, the Committee has decided to not move amendment Nos 14 to 18, as it does not want in any way to prevent or delay the Bill coming into force.”
“It is unfortunate that we got ourselves into a position so late in the day that necessitated back and forth between us and the Department. Obviously, that, in and of itself, creates some degree of uneasiness, but I appreciate the work of the Committee staff, the Bill Office and the Committee members, who have worked in a very collective way to ensure that we get the best possible outcome. I thank the Minister for giving her particular perspective on that issue. I trust that we will move a little bit further on these issues.”
“I thank the Minister for her comments. Members will take those issues into consideration as we progress through the Bill.”
“That would be augmented by a firm departmental commitment to keep a watching brief on the working of the provisions and on the developments in other jurisdictions and to give an undertaking that, where emerging evidence of uncovered abuse arises or clear risk factors are identified, the Department would move swiftly to activate its regulatory powers to extend the abuse of trust provisions to include other groups.”
“She outlined that she therefore intended to oppose the amendments and asked the Committee to reconsider moving them at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />The Minister also advised the Committee that, while she was supportive of a review mechanism being placed in the Bill, she considered that having a review on an annual basis, as provided for in Committee amendment No 20, would place a disproportionate burden on the Department. Therefore, she brought an alternative amendment to commit the Department to completing a review within two years of the abuse of trust provisions in the Bill coming into operation.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister subsequently wrote to the Committee on 2 March, following the deadline for submitting amendments for Further Consideration Stage, indicating that she still remained seriously concerned about the further extension of the abuse of trust provisions into tuition and youth activities. In her view, the provisions were far too indiscriminate in their coverage and engaged the same problems that she had previously raised regarding the Committee's first proposal to extend provisions to include all those who are in a position of trust with young people. Those problems included the potential to attract legal challenge based on the rights of an individual under article 8 of the ECHR, which is a right to a private and family life, and the potential to over-criminalise young people.”
“The Committee agreed to move away from its original proposal for an amendment to include all those who are in a position of trust with young people and to consider tabling more targeted amendments to cover non-statutory tutors and uniformed organisations and provide for a review mechanism. <BR /> <BR />At our meeting on 24 February, the Committee considered and agreed the text of amendment Nos 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. In doing so, the Committee noted the challenge to define "uniformed organisations" and, therefore, tabled the amendment covering youth activities. The Committee advised the Minister on 25 February of the amendments that it intended to table, and it provided the text for her information.”
“<BR /> <BR />Following Consideration Stage, the Committee returned to the matter at its meeting on 17 February, and members continued to have concerns that gaps existed, particularly for uniformed organisations, such as the Scouts, Guides etc, and non-statutory tutors, such as music teachers. How to address these concerns without criminalising a consensual relationship between an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old was the challenge, although it was noted that such a relationship could occur in a sports setting, which is now included in the abuse of trust provision. <BR /> <BR />The potential to include a statutory review mechanism to place a duty on the Department to regularly review the evidence of risk of harm in settings that are not included in the abuse of trust provisions was also proposed.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also requested clarification of how exactly widening the scope further could interfere with article 8 rights in a way that widening it to cover sports and faith settings did not and on what basis there is any greater risk of inappropriately increasing the age of sexual consent by stealth or criminalising young people unnecessarily, taking account of the fact that the provision relates solely to those in positions of trust. I also indicated that, depending on the information and clarification provided, the Committee might wish to consider the matter again before Further Consideration Stage.”
“Instead, the Committee decided to take the opportunity at Consideration Stage to seek further information on and clarification of the basis for the Minister’s concerns regarding extending the scope of abuse of trust further. <BR /> <BR />The Committee supported the amendment that was tabled by the Minister at Consideration Stage to extend the scope of abuse of trust to include certain activities carried out in sports and faith settings, but it sought further information from her on how robust the position would be going forward, given the views expressed that it would not be expansive enough to protect children from adults in positions of trust.”
“There were concerns that widening the scope further could attract legal challenges based on the rights of an individual under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) — the right to private and family life — that there was a clear risk of inappropriately increasing the age of sexual consent by stealth, which would be open to successful legal challenge, and that framing the positions of trust provision too widely would run the risk of over-criminalising young people, who could be considered to be breaking the law if, for example, a person aged 18 had a sexual relationship with a person aged 16 or 17. Given the limited time to complete Committee Stage, the Committee agreed not to table an amendment to extend the scope further at that stage.”
“The Committee was also concerned that the provision lacked clarity and could cause confusion about what activities fell within the definition that is now provided in clause 3. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered tabling an amendment at Consideration Stage to extend the scope to include all persons in a position of trust with young people. However, the Minister expressed the view that that may have significant consequences.”
“Given that decision, the Committee's proposed amendment No 20 becomes all the more important. Therefore, with your permission for latitude, Mr Deputy Speaker, in outlining amendment No 20 and explaining its necessity, I will set out the background to the Committee's position on the abuse of trust provision. <BR /> <BR />As I outlined at Consideration Stage, in light of the evidence received by the Committee, particularly the views expressed by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY), the NSPCC and Barnardo’s, the Committee was concerned that the approach being taken by the Department to widen the scope of the abuse of trust was not comprehensive enough.”
“There is a room in that building where images have to be graded A, B and C so that a judge, rightly, does not have to see them. I am still affected by that to this very day. What goes on is harrowing — absolutely harrowing. Not only do those who are involved in that type of activity need to be brought before the law but the full rigour of the law needs to be brought to bear upon them. I place on record our appreciation of those who work in that unit. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment Nos 14 to 18 and amendment No 20 in the Committee’s name and amendment No 19 in the Minister’s name, which relate to the abuse of trust provisions. This morning, the Committee decided not to move amendment Nos 14 to 18, which would widen the scope of the abuse of trust provisions to include non-statutory tutors and uniformed organisations.”
“<BR /> <BR />Committee members visited the PSNI cybercrime suite last week and heard about the changing nature of offending and how the internet and technology are facilitating and playing a very large part in this. Amendment Nos 11, 12, 13, 42, 43, 44, 46 and 47, if made, will criminalise cyber-flashing in Northern Ireland and ensure that we are at least keeping abreast with other jurisdictions on the issue. The Committee recognises, however, that there is much to be done in the area of technology-supported criminal behaviour, and that will be a challenge going forward. <BR /> <BR />Following the Committee's visit to the cybercrime unit, I pay a word of appreciation to the officers who work in that unit. To say that my colleagues and I were affected by what we heard pales into insignificance compared with what those officers have to see.”
“While this is a departure from the approach adopted in Scotland, which legislated for those factors to apply regardless of motivation — England and Wales may adopt that approach, although the position has not yet been confirmed — and having discussed the issue with departmental officials at our meeting on 24 February, the Committee is content with that approach, given the specific purpose of the notification requirements of the sex offenders register, which is to control potentially dangerous sex offenders rather than also using it to register other instances of cyber-flashing intending to distress, alarm or humiliate a person, particularly given the serious implications that being on the register has for a person's future.”
“to avoid a potential loophole, with the argument that the offence is not committed if the victim does not open the images sent to them. Consequential provision has been included to bring it within the scope of other relevant legislation, including notification requirements often referred to as the sex offenders register and risk management orders such as sexual offences prevention orders and public protection sentences. <BR /> <BR />To avoid over-criminalisation, the notification and risk management measures apply only when sexual gratification is proven.”
“<BR /> <BR />The amendment inserts a new offence into the main sexual offences framework — the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 — rather than its sitting as a free-standing provision in the legislation and refers to:”
“The Committee is grateful to the Minister, departmental officials and the OLC for their assistance and the collaborative approach that was adopted to arrive at the text of the amendments, which provide for a balanced and proportionate approach that can be supported by everyone while aiming to ensure that the offence is as effective as possible. <BR /> <BR />The text now includes a "reckless" element, which would be criminalised where it was combined with the sexual gratification motivation. That is based on the approach recommended by the Law Commission in its review and the report on malicious communications offences, which advised that, if recklessness were to stand on its own as one of the alternative ways of committing an offence without any limiting factors, the offence becomes very wide and could lead to over-criminalisation.”
“The Committee included a "reasonable person" condition in the offence. For that reason, the Minister, while indicating that she had no objection in principle to the introduction of an amendment to provide for an offence of cyber-flashing, raised the same concerns about the text of the amendment in relation to clause 1 amendments. The Committee therefore agreed to consider replacing the "reasonable person" element before bringing an amendment forward at Further Consideration Stage.”
“on summary conviction and, on conviction on indictment:”
“The Committee therefore agreed to table an amendment at Consideration Stage to introduce a new offence of cyber-flashing that would cover sending a person a sexual image without that person consenting or without any reasonable belief that the person consents for the purposes of sexual gratification or humiliating, distressing or alarming the person. "Sexual image" was defined as an image of a person, whether real or imaginary, engaging in a sexual activity or an image of a person's genitals, whether real or imaginary, to cover digitally altered images. The potential penalty for the offence was:”
“The officials indicated that the Department intended to review the existing and proposed legislation, to consider its applicability to Northern Ireland and to develop policy proposals for consultation with an aim of legislating for an offence of cyber-flashing in the next Assembly mandate. <BR /> <BR />In early January, when undertaking its deliberations on the Bill, the Committee discussed the potential to legislate for a specific offence of cyber-flashing. Given that the legislation has been in place for a number of years in Scotland and the UK Government's commitment to legislate for it in England and Wales in the near future, the Committee considered that it would be an opportune time to provide for a similar offence in Northern Ireland and to ensure that this jurisdiction is not left behind.”
“When the issue was raised with the PPS, it was unable to say with certainty that cyber-flashing and deepfakes could be prosecuted under existing legislation, although it thought that they may be captured by the Communications Act offences. <BR /> <BR />The Committee discussed the Scottish cyber-flashing offence, which has been in existence since 2010 with departmental officials, who advised that the UK Government had committed to making cyber-flashing an offence in England and Wales on the basis of the Law Commission's recommendation and provided information on the Irish offence of:”
“She outlined that her research interviewing victims of intimate image abuse found that 34% of images created without consent had been digitally altered. To assist with its consideration of those issues, the Committee commissioned a research paper that provided an overview of the legislative arrangements and practices in other jurisdictions in relation to cyber-flashing and deepfake pornography. <BR /> <BR />During the oral evidence sessions on the Bill, the Committee also sought the views of other witnesses on whether there was a requirement for a specific offence of cyber-flashing and received favourable responses, including from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. In its written submission, the commission highlighted that:”
“and that included pictures of genitals. <BR /> <BR />According to Professor McGlynn, the benefits of adopting a bespoke criminal offence to address cyber-flashing included making it clear that such actions are wrong and potentially harmful and recognising the victims' experiences. It would facilitate successful prosecutions by removing the need to shoehorn cyber-flashing into other laws, and it would provide a positive foundation for education and prevention initiatives. She also believed that the offence must be framed as a sexual offence to recognise its nature and harms, to grant victims anonymity and protections in court and to permit suitable sentencing options. <BR /> <BR />Professor McGlynn also described the distribution of deepfake and fake porn without consent as a growing and harmful problem.”
“<BR /> <BR />I now turn to Committee amendment Nos 11, 12, 13, 42, 43, 44, 46 and 47 on the new offence of cyber-flashing. In the evidence received on the Bill, the issue of cyber-flashing was brought to the Committee's attention by Professor McGlynn of Durham University, who is an expert on laws relating to image-based sexual abuse. Professor McGlynn advocated the creation of a new offence of cyber-flashing to clearly criminalise the sending of unsolicited pictures of genitals. She urged that the offence should be based on non-consent and cover all forms of cyber-flashing regardless of a perpetrator's motives. She also provided evidence on the prevalence of incidents of cyber-flashing, including a recent Ofsted review that:”
“The amendments provide for a separate, stand-alone reckless element to be included in the upskirting and downblousing offences to cover a situation in which a person is reckless as to whether the victim is humiliated, alarmed or distressed and they are any of those things. That is a balanced and proportionate approach to address both the Committee's concerns that the offences as currently in the Bill are not comprehensive enough and the Minister's concerns about an approach that would lead to over-criminalisation. The substantial work that has gone into the amendments, including the assistance of the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), which is very much appreciated, will increase the effectiveness of the offences, and I trust that the Assembly will support them today.”
“While continuing to have questions regarding whether the new offences were framed entirely satisfactorily, given the views and concerns expressed in the evidence received, in light of the Minister's concerns, the Committee agreed to support clause 1 but to have further discussions with departmental officials to address the concerns raised and ensure that, as far as possible, any loopholes were covered. <BR /> <BR />Following discussions over the past couple of weeks, I am pleased to move amendment Nos 1 to 10 and amendment No 45 today, which the Minister has indicated that she will support.”
“The decision not to move the amendments at Consideration Stage came about following a meeting with the Minister during which she outlined her concerns that the addition of a "reasonable person" test would significantly widen the scope of the offences and would have potentially unintended consequences by creating a serious risk that children and young people or vulnerable people who act on the spur of the moment without proper consideration of the consequences of their actions would be unnecessarily and inappropriately criminalised.”
“Members were also not convinced that the current framing of the offence would satisfactorily address a scenario in which the offences were committed or are claimed to have been committed for reasons of "banter" or "group bonding". The Committee decided that an appropriate approach to address its concerns was to include a "reasonable person" test in the motivation requirement, rather than base the offences solely on consent, and tabled amendments at Consideration Stage that were subsequently not moved.”
“The Department advised that it wanted to differentiate between people who technically commit the offence but do so without real malice or intent to cause harm or distress or to obtain sexual gratification and those whose behaviour is predatory, malicious, more dangerous and damaging and/or of greater concern. The Committee also noted that the Gillen review of serious sexual offences recommended that work should be undertaken on the issue of consent, and that is a large-scale exercise. <BR /> <BR />While discussing clause 1, members continued to have concerns that the need to prove motivations was an additional element required to prove the offences of upskirting and downblousing and that it could prevent victims from reporting the offences if they believed that it might lessen the chances of a conviction being secured.”
“<BR /> <BR />During the Committee Stage, the Committee discussed with the PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service and departmental officials the concerns regarding the narrow scope of the offence and the potential difficulties in proving motivation and explored the proposals that had been put to the Committee to address those. The Committee was advised that proving intent is an integral part of any criminal offence. The Department also outlined its concerns that removing motivations and basing the offences solely on consent might broaden them to the extent that they become unworkable and would not provide the ability to identify those who act in a thoughtless or reckless manner without thinking through the consequences of their actions.”
“In the victim's view, there should be no grey areas where such behaviour is tolerated. A clear message needs to be sent out that that behaviour is wrong in any circumstances and that people who make a choice to do that will face the consequences. I again place on record the Committee's appreciation of that victim's sharing their experience and their views on the new offences. It set out clearly to the Committee the responsibility that we have to get the legislation right and ensure that it is comprehensible and operational.”
“Although that case clearly illustrates the need for the specific offences of upskirting and downblousing, the victim was concerned that the offence as drafted would not deal with her type of case, which was, it was claimed, done for a prank, particularly if the perpetrator were under the age of 18.”
“If the offences were not going to be based on the need to demonstrate consent, it was suggested that their scope should be widened to capture instances in which an individual claimed that the act was just a bit of fun by including recklessness as to whether the victim is caused distress, alarm or humiliation. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also met informally with a victim of voyeurism offences. Members heard of the devastating impact that the offences had on the person at the time and the lasting impact on her life and the lives of her family. The handling of the case by the criminal justice agencies and the fact that it was not treated as a sexual offence added to the trauma that they suffered.”
“Views were expressed that it should be unnecessary to prove motivation if consent was not given and that the difficulty in proving the nature of an offender's intentions beyond reasonable doubt may render the offence ineffective. The fact that the impact of the offence on the victim is not dictated by the intentions of the perpetrator was also emphasised. <BR /> <BR />To address those concerns, a number of organisations, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC), believe that a conviction should rest on whether consent was given for the image or video to be taken, with no need to prove motivation.”
“<BR /> <BR />The PSNI welcomed their being made offences, noting that they will prevent crimes of that nature and improve criminal justice outcomes for victims. The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) welcomed the fact that there will no longer be a need to rely on older legislation that was drafted at a time when it was not envisaged that behaviour such as upskirting or downblousing could occur. <BR /> <BR />Although there was widespread support for the new offences, concerns were raised with the Committee that their scope was framed too narrowly, with the requirement to provide proof that the perpetrator acted with the intention of looking at the image for the purpose of sexual gratification or to humiliate, alarm or distress the victim.”
“In the evidence received by the Committee, there was strong support for those new offences from a wide range of organisations, with views expressed that, despite violating a person's privacy and causing them distress, such behaviour has, to date, been seen as a bit of fun and dismissed or not recognised as seriously as other sexual crimes. As a consequence, the Committee was advised that, although it is on the increase owing to the increasing numbers of smartphones, such behaviour is still under-reported. The new offences will therefore address a gap in the law, which, until this legislation, did not criminalise such invasive behaviours, which can be used to distress, humiliate, control or coerce victims.”