MICHAEL RAYMOND OF BENTILEE SENTENCED FOR VOYEURISM AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN STOKE-ON-TRENT

In April 2014, a disturbing case emerged from Bentilee, Stoke-on-Trent, involving Michael Raymond, a 52-year-old man whose actions have shocked the local community and prompted a serious legal response. Raymond was found guilty of installing covert surveillance equipment in the private spaces of two young women, leading to his subsequent imprisonment.

According to court reports, Raymond clandestinely set up cameras inside the bedrooms of the victims, capturing intimate moments over a period of fifteen months. These cameras were discreetly placed and fed footage directly onto his personal computers, allowing him to monitor and record the women without their knowledge. The victims became suspicious when they noticed a red indicator light on the surveillance devices, which they initially believed to be part of a security alarm system. Their suspicions led to police involvement, and a search of Raymond’s residence on Tiverton Road in Bentilee uncovered a disturbing collection of digital material.

During the police search, officers discovered hundreds of indecent images stored across multiple computers. Prosecutor Heather Chamberlain detailed the extent of Raymond’s misconduct, stating that among the images were photographs of one of the women in the shower, as well as partial footage of Raymond’s own face, indicating his direct involvement. The images depicted the victims in various states of undress, including bathing, using the toilet, and sleeping. The court was also shown evidence of Raymond’s interest in child exploitation, with indecent photographs of children found on his devices.

Raymond’s own confession revealed that his motivation was financial. He claimed that he had fallen into financial difficulties after suffering an industrial injury and believed that filming women and uploading the footage online could generate income. However, his plans were thwarted when police intervened before he could act on his intentions.

In court, Raymond pleaded guilty to eleven charges, including six counts of voyeurism and five counts of producing indecent images. The judge, Paul Glenn, sentenced him to eight months in prison for the voyeurism offences, with an additional two months for each of the five charges related to indecent photographs, to run concurrently. The judge emphasized the severity of Raymond’s actions, noting that the images included footage of the victims in private settings such as bedrooms and bathrooms, and also highlighted the presence of child pornography on his computers.

Judge Glenn ordered the destruction of all digital evidence and Raymond’s devices, underscoring the seriousness of his misconduct. He also mandated that Raymond register as a sex offender and prohibited him from engaging in activities involving children or young adults. The court’s decision reflects the gravity of the crimes committed and the need to protect the community from individuals who exploit others in such a manner.