Is it illegal to record an intimate image in Western Australia without consent? The Western Australian Criminal Code section 221BA defines an “intimate image, of a person” as: a still or moving image, in any form, that shows, in circumstances in which the person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy — (i) the person’s genital area or anal area, whether bare or covered by underwear; or (ii) in the case of a female person, or transgender or intersex person identifying as female, the breasts of the person, whether bare or covered by underwear; or (iii) the person engaged in a private act Subsection 221BD(2) defines the offence of distributing an intimate image (without consent). But unlike some other Australian states, the Western Australian Criminal Code does not seem to define an offence of recording an intimate image (I am using the term “record” in a generic sense, to refer to both still and moving images). A WAtoday story from 2017 described a case where a person allegedly recorded under another person’s skirt without that person’s consent, and was charged with “indecent act in public”. This is an offence defined in section 203 of the Criminal Code: A person who does an indecent act — (a) in a public place or in the sight of any person who is in a public place; or (b) in a police station or lock-up, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years. This seems to be a specific case of recording an intimate image without consent; it is not clear whether it generalises to other intimate images, or what the result of the charge was. Wikipedia claims: All jurisdictions within Australia have passed laws making it illegal to take upskirt photos in public places without the person's consent. But it only cites an apparently outdated story about “draft uniform national laws”; the current laws in Australia are certainly not “uniform”.
Yes, but it’s not in the Criminal Code It’s in the SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 1998. s6 prohibits using an optical surveillance device to record (or observe if the person is not a party) “private activity” without consent. The penalty is a $5,000 fine or imprisonment for 12 months or both.
Per your comment responses, Maryland is a two party consent state which means that the other party must consent to your recording IF there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In one's own home is generally considered a place where one has this expectation and thus these recordings are problematic. Depending what you intend to do with them, I would first contact a lawyer to get legal advice as to how to handle this before you publish them. If you are looking to file a criminal complaint (and assuming statute of limitations hasn't run out) the prosecutor may be willing to not prosecute you for violating 2 party consent law because you were trying to gather evidence of someone else's crime, but it's not a guarantee (though this will look bad on the prosecutor come election season). If you are suing your parents it might not be admissible as evidence but I can't specifically say that either. If you are using it to show other people in the same situation what to look for it's probably best to find another set of recordings as these ones carry a lot of legal issues that will come back to bite you if you release them. Finally, while not legal, your parents may not want to pursue the criminal recording side of this matter if they are aware of the &quot;Barbra Streisand effect,&quot; wherein actions taken to ensure something isn't viewed by the public cause that something to gain wider viewership than if they never bothered trying to censor it.
canada Is it a crime [to] engage in sexual discourse with a random stranger [who] pretends to be a little girl [but isn't]? This could be the offence of child luring (Criminal Code, s. 172.1; and R. v. Morrison, 2019 SCC 15). Section 172.1 makes it an offence to communicate using telecommunication with a person &quot;who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 18&quot;, for the purpose of facilitating one of several listed sexual offences. While some child luring would rise to the level of an actual attempt to commit the underlying offence, s. 172.1 captures even earlier activity (R. v. Legare, 2009 SCC 56, para. 25): [s. 172.1] criminalizes conduct that precedes the commission of the sexual offences to which it refers, and even an attempt to commit them
You acted illegally in assaulting your fellow student. When you are in public, a person can legally take your picture, and you are not allowed to assault a person because you do not like their legal actions. Any degree of force is excessive except in certain responses to illegal fource, and even the threat of force is excessive. You also have no right to demand that a person prove that they didn't take your picture, and certainly no right to enforce that demand with physical violence.
There was no actual child who was caused to view the material, so there was no offense under that provision. By contrast, inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity is an inchoate offense, so it is not necessary for any harm to an actual victim to have occurred. Note that the relevant section of the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 concerns "causing or inciting," and that the charge was "inciting." The section concerning watching a sexual act, by contrast, only inludes "causing."
Yes, you can use it as evidence Canada clearly requires what is called a one-party consent for recordings. Section 184(1) of the criminal code makes it a crime to &quot;knowingly intercept a private communication.&quot; However, Section 184(2)(a), the &quot;Saving Provision,&quot; says the prohibition &quot;does not apply to&quot;: (a) a person who has the consent to intercept...of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it.&quot; Because you: a) either originated the conversation or were the person your landlord intended to talk to; and b) gave your consent by making the recording; therefore, c) you are covered by this clause. For more details, you can read nice summaries by lawyers here and here.
There's no legal requirement in Canada or US that the police do anything to investigate a crime, so there's no requirement that they do anything specific to investigate a crime. If the police officers are satisfied by the witness accounts, or have some reason to think viewing surveillance recording wouldn't be useful they don't have to, either by law or policy. Note that ordinarily, police won't consider a physical altercation between two grown men a serious enough crime to warrant charges. If there was no serious injury and there wasn't a large discrepancy between the strength of the two men, police will often decline to lay charges even when they believe the evidence would sustain them. In this case the police may have decided it wasn't worth investigating further because it wasn't worth wasting the time of an already overloaded court system. The victim here still has legal options despite the lack action by the police. He can subpoena the video evidence if he wants to bring lawsuit for damages. In Canada, it's possible even to lay your own criminal charges in a private prosecution, although this much more expensive than a civil lawsuit.
That would be when he does so willfully and lewdly. Simple nudity is not illegal. See for instance in re Dallas W., where the court found that sexual intent is necessary: &quot;'something more than mere nudity' must be shown&quot;, citing In re Smith (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 36. A propos this incident, the reported partial erection is not irrelevant.