BRIAN JOHNSON SHIPLEY VOYEUR CAUGHT TRYING TO SPY ON 15-YEAR-OLD IN BATHROOM

In April 2012, a disturbing case unfolded in Bradford involving Brian Johnson, a 46-year-old quality control supervisor from Leeds Road, Windhill, Shipley. Johnson was accused of engaging in a highly inappropriate and illegal act aimed at secretly observing a teenage girl in her bathroom. The court heard that Johnson had devised a plan to secretly record the girl, who was only 15 years old, by installing a covert camera in his dressing gown pocket.

According to the prosecution, Johnson wired the camera himself and concealed it within his clothing, specifically in the pocket of his dressing gown, in an attempt to capture images of the young girl washing herself. The incident came to light after the girl discovered the hidden camera, prompting her to report her findings to the police. A subsequent search of Johnson’s residence revealed the device, which was hidden in a hole cut into his dressing gown pocket, along with the camera itself, which was found in his wardrobe.

Police officers acted swiftly following the complaint, and their search uncovered the covert camera, confirming Johnson’s involvement in the voyeuristic act. It was noted during the court proceedings that Johnson had no prior criminal convictions, which was acknowledged by his legal representative, Ray Singh. Singh described Johnson’s actions as motivated by curiosity and characterized his behavior as a “moment of madness,” emphasizing that Johnson was not recording or sharing the images and had kept the footage to himself.

During the hearing, the court was informed that Johnson was a hardworking individual with a stable job and a family that stood by him. Despite this, the judge, Jonathan Durham Hall QC, did not shy away from condemning Johnson’s actions. He described the behavior as “depraved and bizarre,” emphasizing that it was a deliberate and calculated attempt to invade the privacy of a young girl. The judge stated, “What you did was wrong. It was sick and completely unhealthy,” and acknowledged that while Johnson was not a typical peeping tom, his actions involved a conscious effort to capture images of a naked child.

In sentencing, Johnson was given a three-year community order, which includes supervision and intensive work by the probation service. He was also ordered to pay costs amounting to £250. Additionally, Johnson was required to sign the sex offenders’ register for five years and was subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order designed to prevent similar offenses in the future. The judge warned Johnson that prison would be an “expensive and useless tool” in his case but cautioned him that breaching the court order could lead to imprisonment. Concluding his remarks, Judge Durham Hall advised Johnson to resist these temptations, saying, “Be careful Mr Johnson, don’t give in to these temptations,” highlighting the importance of accountability and restraint in such matters.