A handyman who masturbated over a tenant’s knickers has been acquitted of criminal damage.
Simon Lawrence, 55, had been called to fix a faulty washing machine when he entered Joanna Hatton’s bedroom at the cottage she rented with her partner Thomas Jones.
But he didn’t realise the couple had installed a motion sensor camera there to watch their cat.
The couple were driving to Somerset for Christmas when Joanna got an alert on her phone that the camera had been activated on 19 December, 2022.
She watched in horror as Lawrence laid out her underwear on the bed and began pleasuring himself.
In a statement read out in court, she said: “Watching this was absolutely horrifying and I felt extremely violated. I will have to carry this burden for the rest of my life.
“When we returned, I could not stay in the bedroom and threw all my underwear away. We had to move out of the house because I felt completely unsafe there.”
Lawrence, of The Street, Sedlescombe, was initially arrested for burglarly, but as he had been given a key by the landlady Susie Milnes he could not be charged with that.
He told the court he had gone into the bedroom because she had asked him to check the soffits – part of the eaves – at the front of the house, which he did from the bedroom window.
He had become aroused when he saw a pair of Ms Hatton’s knickers on the floor and had got more out of her drawers. Once he had finished, he put the underwear back in the drawer.
Lawrence told the court he thought he had been in private, and had no idea he was on camera.
The court heard the video of him masturbating was later circulated around parents in the area who were concerned he was employed by the primary school, whose garden he had helped construct.
He said: “A lot of my work was based in Sedlescombe, with regular customers and that’s all but dried up because of things that have been said around the village.
“It’s possible at the point where I am going to have to sell our house because we can’t live here any more.
“I’m extremely apologetic for what I did.”
Lawrence was initially arrested for burglary, but this charge was not pursued as he had not broken into the cottage, but had permission to be there from the landlady.
He was instead charged with criminal damage, even though no physical damage had been done to the garments.
Prosecuting, David Packer said: “The Crown is relying on the wider definition of criminal damage. Joanna Hatton decided to dispose of her whole underwear drawer as a result of this, which interfered in the enjoyment of her property.”
Defending, Judy Tamony said: “My client thought there was nobody else around. It’s a completely private act, he’s not aware of any TV cameras being in that room.
“There’s no way it can be proved within reasonable doubt that this was foreseeable.
“This is an emotive case because of the distress. He was originally arrested on suspicion of burglary but there’s absolutely no evidence of that. It does eem as though it’s an attempt to deal with this by charging him with an offence which the defence say has not been made out.
“The behaviour was outrageous and can be viewed as reprehensible and he’s already been punished for that because it spread like wildfire through the village and it’s affected his livelihood and reputation.
“But a criminal offence? The evidence just doesn’t add up.”
District judge Tessa Szagun said in cases of criminal damage, the prosecution needed to prove the defendant intended to or was reckless in causing damage to someone else’s property without lawful excuse.
She told Lawrence: “I do not consider that I need to determine whether any damage has been caused to the underwear. The point in question here is whether the prosecution is able to satisfy me so that I am sure on the element of intention or recklessness.
“Whilst this was of course a disturbing and distressing action on your part which has understandably left the complainant feeling violated and repulsed, I cannot be satisfied that this was something that you could have known in the circumstances or foreseen.
“Based on being not sure of the intention or recklessness in this case, I dismiss the matter. You can go.”
Love the headline! How about this for a second line?
Manual worker taken to court after DIY job
Surely the lady has committed an offence of revenge porn for illegally distributing the content of him pleasuring himself during his tea break.
Are you kidding? He ejaculated over her personal clothing. Would you be happy to continue wearing it? Man’s a disgusting devient. The fact that he didn’t know he was on camera is no defence..
‘The Masturbating Handyman’.
‘I’ll do the stuff.. so you don’t have to’.
Great headline
It’s a pity that this has been treated so lightheartedly by the posters as it’s a really disgusting thing to have happened to the lady in her bedroom, not funny at all. I’m pleased that he might have to sell his house as his work has dried up, his reputation is gone too. Good.