Parliament committee reviews use of nanny cameras, sharing intimate images

The issue of the potential misuse of nanny cams and sharing of intimate images were among the issues raised during the fourth meeting of the special select committee on The Sexual Offences (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2021, held on Friday.

Representatives from the Ministries of National Security, Foreign and Caricom Affairs, and Social Development and Family Services, as well as the Office of the Prime Minister, Gender and Child Affairs, and Creative TT appeared before the committee.

In response to questions from committee member Jayanti Lutchmedial, National Security Ministry legal officer II Ryanka Ragbir said the ministry was concerned about circumstances where an owner would have installed cameras supposedly for the security for their children but was covertly using the footage for sexual gratification.

Another issue raised was the sharing of intimate images by third parties without the consent of the person in the image. It was determined it would be too difficult to prosecute everyone who shared the image and the focus should be on the person who initially shared the image.

Ragbir asked for a clause to be changed from “where the buttocks, genitals, and underwear would not normally be exposed” to “where the private parts would not normally be exposed.”

Lutchmedial asked, “if you dress in something risque and go into a public place, can there be an expectation of privacy? You may not want to be photographed and feel humiliated if your photo ends up in the newspaper, but I don’t think we can cover that under the Sexual Offences Act, as we don’t want to over-criminalise things.”

Committee member Randall Mitchell asked whether dressing in certain ways in public spaces introduced the concept of implied consent. He asked whether in the same way there is legislation for the Carnival period which decriminalises the wearing of masks for that period, there could be legislation which decriminalises the wearing of certain types of clothing for that period.

Permanent secretary of the Social Development and Family Services Ministry Jacqueline Johnson asked that additional people should be held responsible for reporting instances of child abuse, including religious leaders, teachers, social workers, healthcare workers, and others. She asked that definitions be added to the bill of the words complainant, consent, accused, or defendant, and spouse.

Sabrina Satram, senior legal officer II of the Children’s Authority asked that the definition of a sexual act be brought in line with that in the Children’s Act in order to ensure that the definition was broad, incorporative, and consistent.

Director of legal services at the Office of Prime Minister, Gender and Child Affairs Nicha Cardenez-Rostant called for different penalties in cases where children are victims and perpetrators. She reminded that young people/children cannot consent in law to pornography being shared. She said there needed to be a proper public sensitisation campaign around this matter, as well of that of bullying.

Acting permanent secretary of the Foreign and Caricom Affairs Ministry Reita Toussaint said the penalties should be higher for people who attempt to use sensitive images for blackmail.

Creative TT director Dionne McNicol-Stephenson said the organisation has a role to play in educating photographers in how the legislation applies to them, in terms of getting the consent of the people they photograph, and the penalties that apply to them.

OPM acting permanent secretary Jacinta Bailey-Sobers asked for a definition of sexual gratification to be included.

Toussaint asked whether images created by drawing, sketching, painting, and shared without the consent of the subject were covered under the bill, as well as audio recordings of people engaged in intimate acts, and whether the bill covered the responsibility for monitoring material on social media platforms.