MARK DURDEN OF TUNBRIDGE WELLS CAUGHT FILMING UP SCHOOLGIRLS AND WOMEN IN LOCAL SHOPS

In March 2017, a disturbing case emerged involving a taxi driver from Tunbridge Wells who engaged in highly inappropriate and illegal activities over a span of three years. The individual, identified as Mark Durden, aged 60, was found to have secretly filmed up the skirts and legs of nearly 200 women, including a significant number of teenage schoolgirls, in various locations around Tunbridge Wells. His actions have shocked the local community and prompted a police investigation that uncovered a pattern of voyeuristic behavior.

Durden, a grandfather residing at Old Town Hill, Lamberhurst, was brought before Maidstone Crown Court where he pleaded guilty to charges of outraging public decency. The court heard that he had taken a total of 268 videos of women in the Tunbridge Wells area, with many of these recordings captured in and around the Royal Victoria Place shopping centre. The videos, stored on his computers and mobile devices, included footage of 93 schoolgirls identifiable by their uniforms, which appeared to have been targeted deliberately.

Despite the evidence, Durden denied that his interest was driven by the girls' age, claiming instead that he was attracted to their uniforms and short skirts. His defense argued that his actions were not predatory based on age but rather on the clothing they wore. However, the police investigation painted a different picture. Durden was arrested in June 2016 after a report from a Topshop employee in Tunbridge Wells, who recognized him from repeated visits to the store after 3.30 pm. The employee noted that Durden’s behavior was suspicious, as he was often seen looking at young girls, mainly in school uniforms, and following them around the shop. The employee described the situation as “creepy” and said it made her feel uncomfortable.

Further inquiries revealed that Durden had been approached multiple times by staff at Topshop, who questioned his presence and behavior. He claimed he was shopping for his niece, but when asked about her age and size, he was unable to provide any details, raising further suspicion. Police obtained CCTV footage that confirmed Durden’s presence in the store on several occasions, and during a search of his home, officers recovered multiple computers, mobile phones, and a black laptop bag.

The laptop bag was found to contain a concealed pocket at one end, designed specifically to hide an iPhone beneath a stack of magazines with a cut-out hole for the camera lens. This setup allowed Durden to film covertly. The videos, dating from June 12, 2013, to June 10, 2016, showed him targeting girls in various shops across Tunbridge Wells, including popular stores such as New Look, Marks and Spencer, Miss Selfridge, and Claire’s Accessories. The footage depicted him filming up the skirts of young girls and the legs of women, often in public shopping environments.

Following Durden’s arrest, several women came forward, recognizing him from the footage and suggesting they might have been victims of his voyeurism. This prompted Kent Police to issue advice to women who believed they might have been targeted, emphasizing the importance of reporting such incidents.

During the court proceedings, Recorder Cairns Nelson QC highlighted the severity of Durden’s actions. He stated, “You used a mobile phone’s video camera concealed in a laptop bag to take video images up the skirts of women and girls, particularly in shops where schoolgirls would attend.” The judge emphasized the scale of the offense, noting that Durden had recorded 268 videos involving 198 different women, including 93 teenage schoolgirls.

While acknowledging the disturbing nature of the images, Judge Nelson took into account Durden’s previous good character, his early guilty plea, and his family circumstances, including his ill wife. As a result, the original sentence of 18 months was reduced to one year in prison. The judge described the offenses as “extremely serious,” citing the planning and persistence involved, as well as the targeting of young girls as aggravating factors. The case serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of voyeurism and the importance of vigilance in public spaces.