LEICESTER MAN SENDS UNSOLICITED EXPLICIT VIDEO AFTER HEARING VOICES
A man known as Bartosz Drabik sent an explicit video to a female charity worker after allegedly hearing her voice inside his head.The video, which he sent via email in June, showed him in a bathroom pulling down his jogging bottoms and exposing himself.
Court proceedings revealed that Drabik claimed he had no sexual interest in the recipient.
Following the incident, the woman contacted Leicestershire Police, leading to his arrest.
The case was heard on August 13 at Leicester Magistrates' Court, where Drabik, using a Polish interpreter, admitted to the act of sending the video.
His solicitor, Zara Cowan, explained that her client was homeless, on medication for schizophrenia, and experiencing auditory hallucinations, including voices resembling the late Queen and King Charles.
She indicated that on this occasion, the voice of the victim instructed him to send the video, and he was simply obeying these commands.
Ms Cowan emphasized that Drabik had no sexual interest in the victim.
During the hearing, the court discussed the severity of the offense.
The victim's statement suggested Drabik was touching himself in the footage, but Ms Cowan argued the video did not display these actions, though she acknowledged it was still inappropriate.
Concerning sentencing, she noted that probation measures might be complicated since he already has access to mental health services.
She also pointed out that, being homeless, he could not be subjected to a curfew or community service.
District Judge Rahim Allen-Khimini decided to order a full probation report to assess how to prevent future offenses.
The Crown Prosecution Service was asked to review the video to establish whether Drabik was touching himself during the incident.
The judge expressed concern over the breach of trust, as the woman knew Drabik personally, and highlighted the aggravating fact that he had been touching his genitals on camera.
While Drabik claimed he was compelled by voices to send the video, the judge indicated that, without further investigation, simply imposing a fine would not address the risk of reoffending.
The case was adjourned until next month for the probation report before sentencing.
